The Russo-Ukrainian War has entered a new phase, in which Ukraine’s Western allies are finally acknowledging that Russia, which controls 35% of Ukrainian territory, is prevailing and will likely win in the end. Trump has signaled that the blank check of weapons and money to Kyiv is about to expire and that he wants a peace deal. Putin has responded that Russia is ready to negotiate. Zelensky says he’s willing to talk. So, will peace talks actually happen? If so, how are they likely to conclude?

A side show to the conflict has been Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk Region of Russia. Russian and allied North Korean forces have encircled the Ukrainians occupying Russia, and Ukraine has made much of the North Korean presence, though it’s not clear what their point is.

“The TMI Show”’s Ted Rall and Manila Chan check in with Mark Sleboda, international relations and security analyst, on the state of the Ukraine War.

The post TMI Show Ep 57: “North Korea Has Entered the Chat” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 57: “North Korea Has Entered the Chat” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The first official reference to Gaza becoming increasingly uninhabitable was made by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, or UNCTAD, in 2012, when the population of the Gaza Strip was estimated at 1.8 million inhabitants.

The intention of the report, The Gaza Strip: The Economic Situation and the Prospects for Development, was not merely to prophesize, but to warn that if the world continued to stand idle in the face of the ongoing blockade on Gaza, a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent.

Yet, little was done, though the U.N. continued with its countdown, increasing the frequency and urgency of its warnings, especially following major wars.

Even after the devastating war on Gaza ends and the rebuilding of the strip concludes, the ecological and environmental harm that Israel has caused will remain for many years to come.

Another report in 2015 from UNCTAD stated that the Gaza crisis had intensified following the most destructive war to that date, the year before. The war had destroyed hundreds of factories, thousands of homes, and displaced tens of thousands of people.

By 2020, though, based on the criteria set by the U.N., Gaza should have become "uninhabitable." Yet, little was done to remedy the crisis. The population grew rapidly, while resources, including Gaza's land mass, shrank due to the ever-expanding Israeli "buffer zone." The prospects for the "world's largest open-air prison" became even dimmer.

Yet, the international community did little to heed the call of UNCTAD and other U.N. and international institutions. The humanitarian crisis—situated within a prolonged political crisis, a siege, repeated wars, and daily violence—worsened, reaching, on October 7, 2023, the point of implosion.

One wonders if the world had paid even the slightest attention to Gaza and the cries of people trapped behind walls, barbed wire, and electric fences, whether the current war and genocide could have been avoided.

It is all moot now. The worst-case scenario has actualized in a way that even the most pessimistic estimates by Palestinian, Arab, or international groups could not have foreseen.

Not only is Gaza now beyond "uninhabitable," but, according to Greenpeace, it will be "uninhabitable for generations to come." This does not hinge on the resilience of Palestinians in Gaza, whose legendary steadfastness is hardly disputed. However, there are essential survival needs that even the strongest people cannot replace with their mere desire to survive.

In just the first 120 days of war, "staggering" carbon emissions were estimated at 536,410 tons of carbon dioxide. Ninety percent of that deadly pollution was "attributed to Israel's air bombardment and ground invasion," according to Greenpeace, which concluded that the total sum of carbon emissions "is greater than the annual carbon footprint of many climate-vulnerable nations."

A report issued around the same time by the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) painted an equally frightening picture of what was taking place in Gaza as a direct result of the war. "Water and sanitation have collapsed," it declared last June. "Coastal areas, soil, and ecosystems have been severely impacted," it continued.

But that was over seven months ago, when parts of Gaza were still standing. Now, almost all of Gaza has been destroyed. Garbage has been piling up for 15 months without a single facility to process it efficiently. Disease is widespread, and all hospitals have either been destroyed in the bombings, burned to the ground, or bulldozed. Many of the sick are dying in their tents without ever seeing a doctor.

Without any outside assistance, it was only natural for the disaster to worsen. Last December, Médecins Sans Frontières issued a report titled Gaza: Life in a Death Trap. The report, a devastating read, describes the state of medical infrastructure in Gaza, which can be summed up in a single word: non-existent.

Israel has attacked 512 healthcare facilities between October 2023 and September 2024, killing 500 healthcare workers. This means that a population is trying to survive during one of the harshest wars ever recorded, without any serious medical attention. This includes nearly half a million people suffering from various mental health disorders.

By December, Gaza's Government Media Office reported that there are an estimated 23 million tons of debris resulting from the dropping of 75,000 tons of explosives—in addition to other forms of destruction. This has released 281,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air.

Once the war is over, Gaza will be rebuilt. Though Palestinian sumud (steadfastness) is capable of restoring Gaza to its former self, however long it takes, a study conducted by Queen Mary University in the U.K. said that, for the destroyed structures to be rebuilt, an additional 60 million tons of CO2 will be released into an already severely impacted environment.

In essence, this means that even after the devastating war on Gaza ends and the rebuilding of the strip concludes, the ecological and environmental harm that Israel has caused will remain for many years to come.

It is baffling that the very Western countries, which speak tirelessly about environmental protection, preservation, and warning against carbon emissions, are the same entities that helped sustain the war on Gaza, either through arming Israel or remaining silent in the face of the ongoing atrocities.

The price of this hypocrisy is the enduring suffering of millions of people and the devastation of their environment. Isn't it time for the world to wake up and collectively declare: enough is enough?

Republicans are using their massive structural media and social media advantage to try to destroy Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass, and the California Democratic Party.

It follows an old script, that’s recently been played out in Russia and Hungary, among other nations: Want to seize control of a nation and turn it into a neofascist state with the consent of the people? Just take control of the channels of public information and news, and then turn lies about your opponents and their supporters into a perceived reality.

Over the past 50 years, Democrats have been busy focusing on and working out policies to benefit average Americans. Increasing access to medical care, $35 insulin, reducing student debt, the CFPB to protect people from banks, cleaning up the environment, American Rescue Act, Inflation Reduction Act, etc.

Republicans and billionaires aligned with them, however, have not only fought against all these efforts, but, far more importantly, have engaged in a massive power play to shift control of popular opinion — and thus control of our government — toward themselves in a way they believe could be permanent.

The plan for this wasn’t a secret; it was laid out in a 1971 memo by tobacco lawyer Lewis Powell, who Richard Nixon put on the Supreme Court in 1972 where he could participate in putting the plan into action — as he did with the Buckley and Bellotti decisions (Powell wrote the latter) legalizing political bribery by saying “money is free speech” and “corporations are persons.”

It began the corruption of the American government by the Reagan administration.

But the details of the GOP’s efforts — which Democrats and wealthy Democratic donors should begin to emulate now if our republic is to survive — are rarely discussed. Here’s what they did, in outline, and how Democrats can fight back.

First, Republicans realized that public opinion drives everything, so they set out to seize as much control over the instrument that drives public opinion as they could: the media.

The details of the GOP’s efforts — which Democrats and wealthy Democratic donors should begin to emulate now if our republic is to survive — are rarely discussed. Here’s what they did, in outline, and how Democrats can fight back.

Second, they realized that the Senate was the power-based linchpin for control of the legislative branch and the key to controlling both the Executive and Judicial branches because only the Senate confirms presidential cabinet positions and federal judges.

If they controlled the Senate much of the time and occasionally got a Republican president, they could also easily stack both the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.

To control the Senate, they knew, they had to control a majority of the states. And that came back to controlling public opinion through the media, particularly in low-population or largely rural states where media could be bought or coopted cheaply.

To first influence public opinion, back in the 1970s-1990s era, billionaires associated with the GOP built a whole series of institutions whose sole purpose was to influence public opinion in ways that comported with the billionaire’s oligarchic agenda.

They crank out policy papers, write op-eds for newspapers and websites, engage in social media, and provide “expert” guests for TV, radio, NPR, and podcasts. Another major function is to “educate” and lobby Republican elected officials about policy and nominees to executive and judicial positions.

Those include:
— Cato Institute
— Mercatus Center at George Mason University
— Americans for Prosperity
— Heritage Foundation
— Manhattan Institute
— American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
— Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
— DonorsTrust
— Independent Women's Forum (IWF)
— Federalist Society
— Judicial Crisis Network (Now Concord Fund)
— Republican State Leadership Committee
— Alliance Defending Freedom
— Marble Freedom Trust
— 85 Fund (Formerly Judicial Education Project)

They also created the State Policy Network, which funds and guides a network of state-based think tanks in every state in America. They similarly influence political discussion through interactions with the media by publishing papers, participating in social media, and lobbying/educating Republican governors, state representatives, and senators. (At the end of this article is a list of them.)

There is no similar infrastructure on the left because no lefty billionaires ever set out to create one.

There are a few left-leaning think tanks and policy outfits like Public Citizen, NAACP, ACLU, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, Roosevelt Institute, Demos, and the Century Foundation. None of these, however, have levels of funding, inter-agency coordination, or integration with the Democratic Party that even begins to approximate the list of conservative organizations above.

In addition to creating powerful, well-funded groups to influence public policy, conservatives focused on the media itself, which they had historically seen as their enemy. Early efforts included Lee Atwater’s famous 1980s “work the refs” strategy of complaining loudly whenever media outlets reported on partisan issues that reflected poorly on the GOP and its politicians.

These were followed by funding and rolling out Rush Limbaugh’s show (1988), Reagan fast-tracking the citizenship of Rupert Murdoch and the subsequent start of Fox “News”; Sinclair’s purchase of hundreds of local TV stations; billionaires like the Dickey brothers purchasing hundreds of local radio stations; and Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital purchasing Clear Channel (2008) and then taking progressive Air America programming off their stations (2010).

Multimillionaire televangelists and wealthy rightwing Hispanics got into the game as well over the past two decades, purchasing over a thousand radio stations nationwide.

The result of these collective efforts is around 1500 radio stations programming rightwing talk (and hundreds of young “farm team” rightwing talk show hosts learning the trade in local markets), almost a thousand “nonprofit” religious stations that also push rightwing politics, and several hundred rightwing Spanish-language stations (that had a huge influence on the Latino vote in 2024).

Rightwing media is now a multi-hundred-billion-dollar-a-year enterprise that includes three major cable TV networks, and more recently rightwing billionaires have ventured into the newspaper business. Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post, Patrick Soon-Shiong picked up the LA Times, Rupert Murdoch bought the NY Post and The Wall Street Journal, and New York City-based hedge funds run by rightwing billionaires own around half of all local newspapers in the country.

And now they’re focusing this media behemoth toward their efforts to destroy the Democratic Party in California and neuter Governor Newsom’s hopes to one day become president.

Again, there is no leftwing or Democratic analog to this media empire that’s been created and is held together largely by a handful of conservative billionaires.

A major parallel strategy Republicans followed was to use this media monster to take over enough states to take control of the Senate and, even when not in majority control, use the filibuster to block Democratic efforts at reform.

There is no leftwing or Democratic analog to this media empire that’s been created and is held together largely by a handful of conservative billionaires.

Their initial focus was low-population and largely rural states, as radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers in those markets are often very cheap.

By the end of 2010, when Romney/Bain shut down the progressive Air America radio network that had helped get Barack Obama elected in 2008, one could drive from coast-to-coast and continuously hear rightwing talk radio but only rarely (when passing through big cities or on SiriusXM) find a progressive voice.

This silencing of progressive talk radio and absolute dominance of the airwaves, both on radio and TV, made it easy for Republicans over the past 35 years to flip low-population and rural states that had been Democratic for generations into the GOP’s camp.

West Virginia, Arkansas (former governor: Bill Clinton), Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Montana (former governor: Brian Schweitzer), Iowa (former governor: Tom Vilsack), Wyoming (former governor: Mike Sullivan), Tennessee (former senator: Al Gore), Georgia (former governor: Roy Barnes), Missouri, and Texas (former governor: Ann Richards) all went from solid blue or largely blue to solid red, as there have functionally been no dissenting voices heard in local media since the 1980s.

A large handful of other states followed a similar trajectory, giving Republicans majority control of the least democratic of our legislative institutions, the Senate, where Wyoming (pop: 584,000) has the same two senators — and thus the same legislative power — as California (pop: 38.9 million).

Following these victories, Republicans turned their attention to the fastest growing aspects of the Fourth Estate: Social media and podcasts. With help from Vladimir Putin’s Internet Research Agency and Wagner Group trolls, GOP operatives, politicians, talk hosts, podcasters, influencers, and cyberbullies began to saturate social media and podcasts with messages condemning Democrats for every little thing that went wrong in America.

Most recently, they’ve brought control of X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp under their banner, both through allowing the uninhibited spread of political lies and disinformation and by tilting their secret algorithms that control what content people see toward the right.

As a result, Republicans — using their vast think tank and media power — have succeeded in rolling back voting rights, civil rights, women’s rights, and taking an axe to public education. And now they’re using lies and slander to go after Gavin Newsom.

This massive machine was so successful in recasting the public perception of elected Democrats that millions of dispirited formerly-Democratic voters simply gave up and failed to vote in the 2024 election.

Next in their sights — along with more tax cuts for the billionaires who funded all this — are healthcare and Social Security, as they work to roll back the last 100 years and end the New Deal and Great Society.

If Democrats want to slow this speeding train heading toward single-party rule of America, they must get with the program and begin to support existing and build out new and powerful policy think tanks and media operations.

The coming election of a new DNC chair presents an opportunity to begin reforming and redirecting the efforts of the Party to a 50-state strategy that can effectively compete with Republicans.

And billionaires with a social conscience — like MacKenzie Scott, Reid Hoffman, Laurene Powell Jobs, and Tom Steyer — need to consider emulating the efforts of Charles Koch, Miriam Adelson, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Robert and Rebekah Mercer, and Ken Griffin.

Republicans have already decided to exploit the climate-change-driven wildfires on the west coast to try to flip California from Blue to Red in the next elections. They’re using their massive media machine to promote naked lies, blaming the fires on Democratic politicians while obscuring the role of the climate change driven by oil industry executives who fund the GOP and many of their think tanks.

Without an all-hands-on-deck effort to build out a Democratic media machine now, our precious democracy may soon be replaced with an authoritarian dystopia that serves nobody but the morbidly rich.

And California could become their biggest victory since the election of Governor Reagan.

Can I admit something to you? Gotta say... I feel embarrassed about this. Perhaps even ashamed.

Okay, here goes: Yes, when I read, see, or hear accounts of what is happening in Los Angeles right now, I do experience empathy and sadness and compassion. And—oh yeah—also a healthy dose of heartbreak and rage about the torrents of disinformation that, these days, automatically mushroom around any event of any significance, especially if climate change is involved.

But—and here's the confession part—I am guessing that my primary reaction, the one about which I feel shame, is based upon this: I'm not there.

In other words, since it's not myself (or any of my loved ones) who is being directly and viscerally and financially impacted, my reactions of empathy occur (literally and figuratively) at a distance. Sure, I'll experience these feelings for a while, especially as I am taking in information or pictures about the situation, but then most of that will quickly evaporate as I go about my day. My at-a-distance reactions almost never move me to take direct and impactful and lasting action, because... I'm not there.

And so my primary reaction is a mixture of relief and (here comes the shame part) some level of indifference.

I'm not proud of this. But there it is.

Right now, there are obviously many thousands of people in Los Angeles who are "there." Right there. Exactly there. They are directly experiencing one of the scientifically understood symptoms of a fossil fuel-supercharged, heating planet.

It's an April day in 2001 and I sit across from the chief of hepatology of Thomas Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia as he shares the conclusions of various diagnostic procedures brought on by some recent health difficulties.

"David, you have a disease called Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC), which is a progressive narrowing of the bile ducts."

Hmm. Okay. That doesn't sound all that bad, right? Okay, I'm not even sure what bile ducts do or where they are located, but...

"So," the doc continues, "What it comes down to is that you will eventually need a liver transplant, and there's nothing we can do to prevent that."

Shock. Utter shock. You see, I wasn't feeling any symptoms of this disease, this PSC. None at all. I'd been dealing with an unrelated medical matter and labs revealed that something was off with my liver numbers and further investigation revealed the PSC.

It took me about a month to get over the shock of my diagnosis. And then... well... I just got on with living my life mostly as if nothing had changed. Since I had no symptoms (they would begin to kick in about three years down the road—fatigue, itching, jaundice) and could do nothing to prevent the disease progression, it was as if I didn't have a disease at all.

I wasn't "there" yet.

Back to Los Angeles. Full Disclosure: I know much more about climate change than the average person. I researched it intensively and wrote 15 published articles back in 2012-2015. Then... I mostly gave up writing about it. Why? Because it gradually became apparent that mere information—no matter how compellingly or creatively expressed—was NOT going to move most people to take significant action.

Why? Because most people would not be "there" for years and decades to come? Sure, climate change would become more and more symptomatic, but the Earth is a big place. An increasingly occurring wildfire here or there, a superstorm here or there, a superdrought here or there, still ends up leaving the vast majority of folks not being obviously and viscerally impacted.

I mean... at least at first.

January, 2006. Dr. Susan Althoff—one of three surgeons who performed the liver transplant—shoots me a steely look: "David, we WILL get you through this."

I am laying on my bed in the liver-transplant wing of the University of Pennsylvania Hospital. My youngest brother is also in this wing since, about a week before, he donated half of his liver to me (It's called a Live Donor Transplant).

So now I've got a new half-a-liver (which, incredibly, will grow to a 100% liver in about a month's time, as will my brother's remaining half-a-liver). The problem is that my body has so far rejected my new liver. This is not particularly uncommon. Suddenly, there is a huge hunk of "foreign" tissue inside of me, and my body's immune system is trying to eject it. There are drugs for this, which I am now taking and will be taking for the rest of my life.

But these drugs are being overwhelmed, and so they put me on the next protocol—high dose steroids. And—wheeeeee!—the steroids DO give me drug-induced diabetes but are not enough to turn the tide. Dr. Althoff has just entered to give me that piece of bad news. I am beyond exhausted and respond with some expression of despair and hopelessness.

Dr. Althoff responds with that steely look (see above) and explains: "We have one more protocol called OKT-3 (when they bring out the letters-and-numbers meds, you know it's serious). We've only used it three times in the last year. You'll know it's working if you get a high fever and start to feel really, really sick."

Twelve hours later, I am shivering under a special, ice-filled blanket. I have a high fever and feel quite sick, wrecked even. The OKT-3 is apparently working.

Finally, I am "there." Boy-oh-boy, am I there. Right there. Exactly there. Everything else in the world disappears. Every single thing other than wanting this to stop and wanting to get better and feel better. I would do anything.

Right now, there are obviously many thousands of people in Los Angeles who are "there." Right there. Exactly there. They are directly experiencing one of the scientifically understood symptoms of a fossil fuel-supercharged, heating planet. Most of them, I am sure, would do anything to make it stop and to make things better.

Even the ones who—subject to the unceasing and enormously financed propaganda of fossil fuel corporations and the governments and political parties that they have purchased—have denied the reality of human-caused climate change (as well as the ones—let us not forget—who blandly "believe" it, but have placed it way down on the list of concerns) will be less likely to dismiss the scientific reports that will be published finding that the intensity of these fires was 20% or 40% or 75% more likely to have happened due to the inexorably heating planet. These reports will be coming. This is certain.

Because—just like me under that ice blanket—they are finally "there," their nervous systems violated and assaulted. Their world turned upside down.

I am forever grateful to my brother. Yes, my situation was serious. But I was only one person. And I was willing to go along with the science. And I only needed one other person (with a compatible blood-type!!) to step up. And, lastly, as my fatigue increased and my weight melted away and my eyes and skin turned yellow, I was brought at least partially "there" and became willing to undergo fairly extreme and grueling duress to set things right.

But when it comes to setting things right climate-wise, there are 8.2 billion of us. Most are ceaselessly occupied trying to make ends meet. Many are swayed by the flat-out disinformation campaigns of those wishing to keep things as they are. Most—though this ratio will gradually swing the other way—are not yet nearly "there" in terms of direct-and-undeniable climate impacts.

This is a stark brew.

Things can get stark under the ice blanket or the thousand-and-one other grueling demands of major surgery and recovery (I needed a follow-up surgery in 2010 which was—I kid you not—at least 200% more difficult than the transplant. Once things are allowed to go a great degree out-of-balance, it becomes much more likely that unforeseen complications and collapses will ensue.)

I could have died during my transplant in 2006. I very nearly did die in the 2010 surgery.

Some people have died in the LA fires. The body count continues to grow. Many, many more have lost now-uninsurable homes, cars, pets, etc. The "stark brew" cited above all but assures that millions more people will die before anything close to enough "there-ness" occurs throughout the populace to prompt enough people to stand for change—even the grueling and deeply inconvenient change that is demanded by the physics of Earth.

I wish it were different. So do many people whom I know.

But it isn't different.

One barely noticed pledge by President-elect Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign appeared in a May Time magazine interview that offers an especially ominous warning about Trump 2.0. If he won a new term, Trump said, he would “probably” disband the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response policy established by Congress in 2022.

Fast forward to his new nominees, especially Secretary of Health and Human Services anti-vax conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has said he would pause National Institute of Health infectious disease and drug development research for eight years. As the saying goes, we might have a problem.

With confirmation hearings soon to begin for Kennedy and other healthcare department heads with similar views about to begin, the threat of future pandemics in an administration with a disastrous track record is another reason to urge their defeat.

If the U.S. had the same death rate as Australia, The New York Times later reported, about 900,000 American lives would have been saved.

The 2022 law was prompted by the worst pandemic in a century, that has killed over 1.2 million Americans. The law’s roots were in a pandemic global health security office former President Barack Obama set in the National Security Council. It followed Obama’s experiences with the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009 that killed up to 575,000 people globally, including more than 12,000 in the U.S., and the 2014 Ebola outbreak that claimed thousands of lives in West Africa and provoked a major scare in the U.S.

Trump eliminated the office in 2018, suggesting, The Associated Press reported, “that he did not see the threat of pandemics in the same way that many experts in the field did.” In March, 2020, former pandemic office director Beth Cameron wrote she was “mystified” by the unit’s shutdown “leaving the country less prepared for pandemics… all with the goal of avoiding a six-alarm blaze.” Trump officials insisted they were fully prepared. Facts on the ground tell a different story.

In December 2019 the first reports emerged of patients in China suffering symptoms of an unknown pneumonia-like illness, drawing reminders of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, SARS Cov-1. By early January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) began referring to the outbreak as a 2019 Novel Coronavirus, soon to be renamed Covid-19.

With infections spreading in Asia, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in late January reported the first U.S. cases. The first U.S. deaths occurred in January 2020. By mid-March, when Cameron’s op-ed appeared, the WHO confirmed more than 118,000 Covid cases and 4,291 deaths.

Australia, which had a similar profile of libertarian individualism and a right-wing prime minister in 2020, created a bipartisan response with opposition Labor Party and state leaders, and medical officers out front. They quickly subsidized production and distribution of masks, prioritized testing and contact tracing, and understood some shutdowns were necessary. If the U.S. had the same death rate as Australia, The New York Times later reported, about 900,000 American lives would have been saved.

Trump: ‘It’s Going to Be Fine’

The first year of Covid-19 was critical to establishing the protocols and public health protections to confront the crisis and reduce the deaths and suffering. But, due to widespread government failures, infections spread like wildfires. Yet the Trump administration was glacially slow to react. In his first public statement January 22, 2020, Trump declared, “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”

In multiple comments tracked by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Trump downplayed the danger. February 2020: “Looks like by April… when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away,” “CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus,” “We’re going very substantially down, not up,” and, “One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”

Due to Trump’s malfeasance; promotion of misinformation, including false miracle cures; and actively discouraging government and community safety steps to slow the spread, Covid-19 exploded.

As Trump’s term ended on January 20, 2021, the U.S. recorded 25 million cases, and over 400,000 deaths.

Embracing the sluggish signals from Washington, hospitals stalled on adopting critical safety protocols and were ill-prepared for the flood of desperately ill patients that led to cascading deaths, with bodies piling up in makeshift morgues or refrigerated trucks outside hospital doors. It was made worse by inadequate isolation of infected patients and shortages of ventilators and proper protective equipment for overwhelmed nurses and other healthcare workers who paid a horrific price with thousands of deaths and many leaving due to unwillingness to work in unsafe conditions.

Trump’s failures continued for months. At a White House press conference on April 3, Trump eroded a new tepid CDC guidance people consider wearing masks, as other countries were now requiring to reduce transmission of the virus, by adding he would not do so.

Trump’s position, New York University sociologist Eric Klinenberg recalled, “undermined it,” suggesting “to anyone in his world that wears a mask, it’s cowardly, weak, feminine, so no one’s going to wear masks. [It] becomes clear to everyone in the Republican establishment that bearing your face is the way to show solidarity and support to the president,” reinforcing a partisan political divide on not just masks but soon all public health measures.

In late April 2020, as the U.S. death toll passed 60,000, Trump said, “This is going away.” In May, amid 80,000 deaths, Trump said, “We have met the moment, and we have prevailed.” In June, with 110,000 dead Americans, Trump said, “It is dying out, it’s going to fade away.”

On August 31, with the death count passing 180,000, Trump said, “We’ve done a great job in Covid, but we don’t get the credit” blaming a “fake news media conspiracy.” For months, Trump demanded an end to steps some states were implementing to limit infections. As Trump’s term ended on January 20, 2021, the U.S. recorded 25 million cases, and over 400,000 deaths.

National Nurses United (NNU), one of the first to respond to prior pandemics during H1N1 in 2009 and Ebola in 2014, had gained valuable experience. By early January, 2020, “before most people in the U.S. had even heard of Covid-19,” as The New York Times noted, NNU began mobilizing and aggressively pushing employers, government elected officials, and health and regulatory agencies to implement decisive safety actions. In contrast to public agencies, NNU launched multiple public endeavors from rallies to marches, vigils, pickets, and other collective action, including strikes, to demand optimal protections for nurses, other healthcare workers, patients, and the broader public.

Employers took their lead from Trump and the federal agencies he influenced, including the CDC and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that continually eroded safety guidelines and workplace regulations. Hospitals, observed NNU executive director Bonnie Castillo, RN, “took a gamble relative to how much to have and how much to be prepared. And the CDC came out with guidelines shifting, commensurate to what the hospitals are complaining of. The lower standard is cheaper. So they just kept lowering and lowering, all the way down to bandannas. They’re looking at us like fodder.”

The racist Legacy of Trump’s Covid-19 Malfeasance

Trump’s mismanagement and indifference to who was most harmed proved catastrophic for communities of color, including a large percentage who were essential workers in transit, food processing, service industries, and healthcare.

Early in the pandemic, Trump sought to shift blame from his administration to China, repeatedly referring to Covid-19 as “the China virus,” though by April the U.S., with 4% of the world’s population, accounted for 17% of global Covid-19 deaths. Trump’s racist scapegoating ignited a sharp rise in anti-Asian hate speech and physical assaults.

His future HHS nominee Kennedy was among those adding fuel to the fire. At a 2023 New York press event Kennedy claimed “there is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately… The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

“We’re being treated like we don’t matter and we’re dispensable.”

Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) healthcare workers subsequently reported a rise in racist incidents, both in hospital settings and in their daily lives. Twice as many verbal and physical assaults were directed at women. “We must unite to challenge anti-Asian violence, harassment, and racism,” said University of California San Diego RN Dahlia Tayag at a statewide California Nurses Association protest against ongoing anti-Asian hate crimes.

The disproportionate racial impact was evident in Covid=19’s devastating toll on Filipino healthcare workers. Kansas City RN Celia Yap Banago, one of many RNs who had pressed her hospital to fix inadequate protections, was one of the first RNs to die in April 2020. “We were being told we’re not allowed to wear masks because it’s going to scare our patients,” said Jenn Caldwell, RN.

By August 2023 when the government stopped reporting healthcare-worker Covid-19 data, 5,753 healthcare workers, including 501 RNs, had died of Covid-19. In a June interview, Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, CNA/NNOC’s first Filipina president, noted that nurses call for help from Trump and Congress “fell on deaf ears… Our employers are banking on (CDC) guidelines, which have been watered down… We’re being treated like we don’t matter and we’re dispensable.”

The Racial Disparity of Infections and Death

Centuries of structural racism accelerate the disproportionate impact of any crisis, including pandemics. As Trump was continuing to downplay the tsunami of infections and deaths, and discouraging safety procedures, the racial impact escalated. Black Chicagoans, 30% of city residents, comprised 72% of the Covid-19 deaths. Black Michigan residents, under 15% of the population, accounted for 40% of the deaths. Milwaukee African Americans, 26% of the population, totaled 70% of Covid-19 deaths. Similar rates were evident across the country, from states with large Black populations like North and South Carolina, to those with smaller percentages, such as Nevada and Connecticut.

Latinos were 80% of the first people admitted for care at San Francisco’s large public hospital and in Latino San Jose neighborhoods. Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islander infection and death rates were also higher in California. In March 2020, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham cited “incredible spikes” in Navajo Nation. Two months later, Navajo Nation still had higher Covid-19 infection cases per capita than much more publicized, hard-hit New York City.

Columnist Jamelle Bouie linked the disparities to “longstanding structural inequities.” Systemic racism in healthcare had a long history, evident in less access to medical institutions and caregivers, provider treatment biases, lower rates of costly health coverage, housing segregation, and higher concentration in polluted neighborhoods. Hospitals in Black neighborhoods were far more likely to close than in mostly white areas, a National Institutes of Health study found.

“What it meant to be an essential worker was to be deemed expendable.”

Black and Latino workers were also far more likely to hold “essential” jobs. Many were concentrated in lower paid jobs often forced to keep working due to economic need or employer pressure, including in food services, grocery and drug stores, and poultry and other meat processing plants. The Guardian reported alarmingly high transit worker death rates among bus and subway drivers, mechanics, and maintenance workers in New York, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Washington D.C., and other major cities.

In September 2020, the CDC drew condemnation for reportedly soft-pedaling safety precautions due to political interference at a South Dakota meatpacking plant. All these factors resulted in workers of color having less economic ability or opportunity to shelter or work from home, and less access to safety measures, from masks to social distancing on the job where they risked constant exposure.

It also reinforced a class chasm with “a lot of professional and more affluent people who could afford to make the kind of sacrifices this public emergency called for who were able to protect themselves, able to sustain a level of comfort that other people in America were not,” says sociologist Klinenberg.

“It wasn’t like when we called them essential, we said, because you’re essential we’re going to honor you, we’re giving you masks, you get the best access to healthcare in the world, and here’s a bonus from all of us and our forever gratitude. What it meant to be an essential worker was to be deemed expendable. And it wasn’t just you, you got exposed to the virus, then you were more likely to go back home to your family who also got exposed to the virus. So you’ve got these neighborhoods throughout the country where there’s a lot of working class people who are getting exposed and they have higher mortality,” he added.

“Covid was kind of a search light that showed us everyone, everywhere we had studiously looked away from,” writer and activist Naomi Klein observed. “Suddenly we’re forced to think about the way in which our culture produces disposable people, whether they are working in elder care facilities when there’s suddenly Covid outbreaks, or the poultry plants [that] were Covid hotspots. Places where you never see a camera because we’re not supposed to think about, [like] what’s going on in prisons.” Klein cited “the myth of neoliberalism, like we are just individual people and families, and we don’t owe anything to each other. Covid said that wasn’t the case because you can’t just treat individuals, you have to treat a body of enmeshed individuals.”

Workers and unions had to fight their employers and public agencies under Trump to protect their members and the public. Union pressure, Castillo told The New York Times, moved some hospitals to act. In the first six months alone, NNU “staged more than 350 socially distanced protests, including two vigils in front of the White House for the nurses who died from the virus.”

Though Trump’s first term ended with the rollout of a Covid-19 vaccine, lasting damage had been done with his encouragement of opposition to critical community protections from masking to social isolation to needed closures to reduce the spread of the virus, and his sympathy for an escalating anti-vax movement. NNU early in 2021 characterized the Trump administration’s response as “one of denial and abandonment.”

Going forward, with Trump nominating people with similar views opposing the importance of a robust approach to public health, including full preparedness and action on sure-to-come future epidemics, there is ample cause for concern. A new avian flu’s first U.S. death has already occurred. Measles, polio, and other illnesses could mushroom, especially with health officials hostile to vaccines in charge of health agencies with vaccination rates already declining.

With confirmation hearings approaching, The New York Times this week reported the alarming vaccination drop “creating new pockets of students no longer protected by herd immunity [with]… now an estimated 280,000 kindergartners without documented vaccination against measles, an increase of some 100,000 children from before the pandemic.” Resurgence of polio, once virtually eradicated, is also a threat.

Rising temperatures from climate change mean that bacteria not only grow faster but are also associated with increased antibiotic resistance, facilitating the rise of new deadly pandemics. Factor in expected cuts in federal agencies and reduced enforcement of workplace and community protections by an administration more friendly to corporate demands for cuts in regulations.

Over the coming days and years, our vigilance and mass action will be critical to protecting public health.

Although he’s purportedly less serious about it than his sabre-rattling against Greenland and Panama, Donald Trump is making dark threats against Canada, saying he wants it to become the 51st state. He should be careful! The US almost always loses its wars.

The post War Against Canada first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post War Against Canada appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The NFL was forced to relocate Monday night’s playoff game between the Los Angeles Rams and the Minnesota Vikings to State Farm Stadium in Arizona because the Rams’ home field, SoFi Stadium, is only 10 miles from the Palisades Fire, the largest of six active blazes in the Los Angeles area. Turbocharged by climate change, the fires have killed at least 24 people, burned more than 40,000 acres, destroyed more than 12,300 structures, and displaced tens of thousands of residents.

The day before the game, Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford told reporters that his team was playing for more than just themselves—they were playing for the entire city of Los Angeles. “Every time we suit up, we’re the Los Angeles Rams,” he said. “We play for the people in this community, the people that support us, and this week will be another example of that.”

But the Rams also play for their corporate sponsors, which ironically include Shell Oil Products US, an affiliate of a multinational oil company that bears major responsibility for the conditions that set the stage for Los Angeles’ devastating fires.

Will mounting extreme weather disasters—and stadium damage projections—ever convince the L.A. Rams and other sports teams to sever their ties to the very companies responsible for the climate crisis?

The Rams are not alone in their choice of partnerships. More than 60 U.S. pro sports teams and at least three leagues have lucrative sponsorship deals with oil companies and electric and gas utilities that afford the companies a range of promotional perks, from building signage to uniform logos to facility naming rights, according to a survey conducted last fall by UCLA’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Likewise, sports teams and leagues partner with banks and insurance companies that invest billions of dollars in coal, oil and gas companies, all to the detriment of public health and the environment.

With annual payrolls running as high as $240 million in the NFL, $300 million in the MLB, and $200 million in the NBA, it is not hard to understand why teams pursue corporate sponsorships.

Companies, meanwhile, sponsor teams and leagues to increase visibility and build public trust. According to a 2021 Nielsen “Trust in Advertising” study, 81 percent of consumers completely or somewhat trust brands that sponsor sport teams, second only to the trust they have for friends and family. By sponsoring a team, corporations increase the chance that fans will form the same bond with their brand that they have with the team.

Oil companies, gas and electric utilities, and the banks and insurance companies that finance them have yet another rationale for aligning with a team or a league: to distract the public from their unethical practices and portray themselves as public-spirited, good corporate citizens. It’s called sportswashing, a riff on the term greenwashing.

When Bank of America—which invested $33.68 billion in fossil fuel companies in 2023 alone—signed on as an official sponsor of the FIFA World Cup last year, the company’s chief marketing officer explained how it works. “The World Cup is religious for the fans, it’s an entirely different beast,” he said. “It allows us a very powerful place for the emotional connections to build the brand.” Having a strong brand, he added, can provide a “halo effect” for a company.

Making Shell Look Good

The Rams and Shell have been partners since 2018, but in October 2023 the Rams announced that the company signed a multiyear contract for an undisclosed sum to be the “exclusive fuel sponsor” of the team, SoFi Stadium and Hollywood Park, the mixed-use, under-construction district surrounding the stadium that is owned and operated by Rams CEO Stan Kroenke. Shell now offers gasoline discounts on game days and collaborates with the three organizations on community initiatives on health, STEAM (science, technology, engineering, the arts and mathematics) education, sustainability and other issues.

A home is engulfed in flames during the Eaton fire in the Altadena area of Los Angeles County, California on January 8, 2025. (Photo by Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images)

The Rams could not have picked a more inappropriate partner (except, perhaps, ExxonMobil). Shell a cosponsor of community health projects? It’s one of the top 20 air polluters in the country. A supporter of STEAM education? The first initial of that acronym stands for “science,” but Shell is still funding climate science disinformation, even though it was aware of the threat its products pose as far back as the 1950s. And a promoter of sustainability? Historically the company is the fourth-biggest investor-owned carbon polluter and the second-biggest since 2016, when the Paris climate agreement to cut emissions was signed.

In 2020, the company did adopt a number of goals to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Since then, however, it has backtracked, reneging on its pledge to cut oil production 1 to 2 percent annually through 2030, weakening its target of reducing emissions from 25 to 40 percent by 2030 to only 20 to 30 percent, and completely abandoning its goal of lowering the total “net carbon intensity” of its products (the emissions per unit of energy) 45 percent by 2035 due to “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.”

The Rams are not the only U.S. pro team, nor the only team in California, enabling sportswashing. Chevron sponsors the Los Angeles FC soccer team, Sacramento Kings and San Francisco Giants; Arco, owned by Marathon Petroleum, sponsors the L.A. Dodgers and Sacramento Kings; NRG Energy, an electric utility that sold off its renewable energy division years ago, sponsors the San Francisco 49ers; and Phillips 66, owner of Union 76 gas stations, also sponsors the Dodgers. Although the two NBA teams in Los Angeles do not have fossil fuel industry-related sponsors, ExxonMobil is an “official marketing partner” of the NBA, WNBA and NBA Development League in the United States and China.

Given California has been plagued by climate change-driven wildfires for years, one would hope that sports teams in the state would reconsider their fossil fuel industry sponsorships. Last August, more than 80 public interest groups, scientists and environmental advocates tried to get the Dodgers to do just that, calling on the team to cut its ties to Phillips 66. “Using tactics such as associating a beloved, trusted brand like the Dodgers with enterprises like [Union] 76,” they wrote in an open letter, “the fossil fuel industry has reinforced deceitful messages that ‘oil is our friend,’ and that ‘climate change isn’t so bad.’” Since it was first posted, more than 22,000 Dodgers fans have added their names to the letter, which urges the team to end its sponsorship deal with the oil company “immediately.” To date, they are still waiting for a response.

California state, county and city governments, meanwhile, are going after the perpetrators in court. Altogether they have launched nine lawsuits against Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell to hold them accountable for deceiving the public and force them to pay climate change-related damages. The cities filing suit include Imperial Beach, Oakland, Richmond (home to a Chevron refinery), San Francisco and Santa Cruz. Five of the nine lawsuits also name Marathon Petroleum and Philips 66 as defendants.

State Farm a Good Neighbor?

The UCLA survey only documented the links between pro sports teams and their leagues with oil and utility companies. Banks and insurance companies that finance fossil fuel projects also have sponsorship deals. For example, six of the 12 banks that invested the most in fossil fuel companies since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2016—Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Scotiabank and Wells Fargo—have each spent a small fortune on sports facility naming rights. Meanwhile, a review of the 30 NFL stadiums found that at least three are named for an insurance company with significant fossil fuel-related investments. One of those facilities is State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, where the Rams and Vikings played Monday night. The biggest home and auto insurer in the country, State Farm bought naming rights to the stadium in the fall of 2018 for an undisclosed sum.

Unlike all but one of its competitors, which have significantly cut back their investments in fossil fuel projects, State Farm has dramatically increased them, according to a September 2024 Wall Street Journal investigation. As of last May, the company held $20.6 billion in shares and bonds in 65 fossil fuel companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell, according to a 2024 report by Urgewald, a German environmental group.

In May 2023, at the same time it was expanding its fossil fuel industry portfolio, State Farm stopped issuing new homeowner policies in California because of wildfire risks and ballooning construction costs. Less than a year later, it announced that it would not renew 30,000 homeowner policies and 42,000 policies for commercial apartments in the state. Some 1,600 of those policies covered homes in Pacific Palisades, the neighborhood just destroyed by the Palisades Fire.

State Farm’s “2023 Impact Report” states the obvious: “Being a good steward of our environmental resources just makes sense for everyone.” But for the company, that only means cutting its own carbon emissions, reducing waste at its facilities, and promoting paperless options for its customers. What about the impact of the billions of dollars the company invests in major carbon polluters? The report doesn’t mention it.

Stadiums at Risk

Hurricanes, snowstorms, and other severe events have forced the NFL to cancel preseason games and postpone and move regular season games in the past. But Monday night’s game in Arizona was the first time the NFL had to relocate a postseason game since 1936, when it moved the championship game between the Green Bay Packers and the Boston Redskins from Boston to New York because of low ticket sales.

What about the impact of the billions of dollars the company invests in major carbon polluters?

Going forward, the NFL and other sports leagues likely will have to move games more often, if not abandon facilities, because of climate change-related extreme weather events. A handful of events over the last two decades may signal what team owners should anticipate. They include:

• Hurricane Milton sweeping through Florida’s midsection last October, shredding the roof of the Tampa Bay Ray’s Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg and causing more than $55 million in damage. The Rays will have to play its 2025 season home games at the Yankees’ 11,000-seat spring training facility in Tampa.
• A massive snowstorm in December 2010 crushing the roof of the Minnesota Vikings’ Metrodome, costing $18 million to replace.
• Hurricane Katrina ripping the roof off of the New Orleans Saints’ Superdome in August 2005, costing more than $200 million to repair.

Several NFL stadiums are especially at risk, according to a report published last October by Climate X, a data analytics company. The report ranks the 30 NFL stadiums based on their vulnerability to such climate hazards as flooding, wildfires, extreme heat and storm surge, and compares projected damage over the next 25 years to each stadium’s current replacement value.

The three stadiums that face the greatest threat? MetLife Stadium, SoFi Stadium and State Farm Stadium, in that order.

The report projects that MetLife Stadium, the New Jersey home of the New York Giants and Jets, will suffer the highest total percentage loss of 184 percent of its current replacement value, with cumulative damages of more than $5.6 billion by 2050 due to its low elevation and exposure to surface flooding and storm surges. (Like State Farm, the MetLife insurance company has major fossil fuel investments. As of May 2024, it held $7.4 billion in stocks and bonds in more than 200 companies, including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell.)

SoFi Stadium and State Farm Stadium, meanwhile, are both expected to sustain significant losses due to increased flooding and … wildfires. The Climate X report estimates that SoFi Stadium will incur a cumulative loss of 69 percent of its current replacement value with damages of $4.38 billion by 2050. State Farm Stadium, the third-most vulnerable facility, likely will experience a 39 percent total loss, with $965 million in cumulative damages.

Will mounting extreme weather disasters—and stadium damage projections—ever convince the L.A. Rams and other sports teams to sever their ties to the very companies responsible for the climate crisis?

Last summer, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres castigated coal, oil and gas companies—which he dubbed the “godfathers of climate chaos”—for spreading disinformation and called for a worldwide ban on fossil fuel advertising. He also urged ad agencies to refuse fossil fuel clients and companies to stop taking their ads. So far, more than 1,000 advertising and public relations agencies worldwide have pledged to refuse working for fossil fuel companies, their trade associations, and their front groups.

It is past time for professional sports teams and leagues to do the same.

Everyone needs access to high-quality health services, but health inequities persist. Societal attitudes among healthcare workers, advocates say, foster stigma and discrimination that discourage patients from seeking help.

Enter the “woke brigade.” In an effort to provide “culturally and linguistically-appropriate proficient health care delivery for our nation’s increasingly diverse population,” doctors, nurses and others are being trained in Cultural Sensitivity classes to use more better words.

Are Cultural Sensitivity programs effective or, as some studies have shown, can they be counterproductive and even create a hostile work environment? Are they actually a distraction from the real causes of unequal access to healthcare: poverty and health-insurance companies that routinely deny claims?

Ted Rall and Manila Chan have exclusively obtained documents from a Cultural Sensitivity program now in widespread use in a US hospital system. Join us as we explore the role of language training in a medical workplace.

The post TMI Show Ep 56: “Cultural Sensitivity for Marginalized Groups and Persons” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 56: “Cultural Sensitivity for Marginalized Groups and Persons” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Donald Trump has nominated former Texas state representative Scott Turner as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the $70 billion federal agency that administers rental assistance and public housing programs, enforces fair housing laws, and provides community development grants to local communities.

Other Trump cabinet nominees, like potential Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have attracted attention for the ways they may shift the traditional priorities of the agencies they would lead. Turner has flown under the radar.

Perhaps that is because dramatic changes to HUD would need congressional approval, which was denied when Trump tried to slash the department during his first administration. Or maybe it is because, in many respects, Turner does not seem inclined to significantly alter U.S. housing policies.

As for likely HUD Secretary Turner, he is most associated with yet another housing giveaway to the rich.

That is not a good thing.

A Trump-Turner housing agenda appears destined to continue the worst aspects of our nation’s approach to affordable housing: a relentless diversion to the already-wealthy of resources supposedly designated for the housing needs of the poor.

This reverse Robin Hood approach to U.S. housing began in the 1970’s, when the Nixon administration and Congress began switching our affordable housing investment away from public housing to subsidizing for-profit landlords. Now, we fund wealthy landlords, often corporate landlords, via direct payments such as the Housing Choice Voucher program and Project-Based Section 8 program, in return for the for-profit landlords temporarily housing low-income tenants. 558F Low-Income Housing Tax Credits are designed to provide a tax shelter for wealthy investors.

This profit-soaked combination costs taxpayers six times more each year than public housing does. But public housing is far more efficient, for the simple reason that it bypasses private profits. Public housing is also hugely successful in providing high-quality, low-cost housing when there is adequate investment in maintenance and upkeep.

That is why other nations, who have far less homelessness, evictions, and housing-insecure people than we do, prioritize public housing. They divert little if any government support to for-profit landlords. And it is why U.S. for-profit landlords have been pushing for generations to block U.S. public housing from the funds it needs to ensure safety and keep up maintenance. The resulting deterioration of U.S. public housing undercuts competition for private landlords and creates a narrative justifying the delivery of housing dollars to the private sector.

A Subsidy for Gentrification

But those privatized programs are deeply flawed. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit often leads to rents higher than poor families can afford. The program known as LIHTC has been characterized by housing researchers as “a better-than-nothing gimmick that helps the poor by rewarding the rich.” Even that characterization is too generous for some legislators, who call LIHTC “legalized theft of government assets.”

Similarly, project-based Section 8 housing directs government dollars to for-profit landlords as payment for low-income tenants’ rent. But, like LIHTC, the program allows those landlords to convert their buildings to market-rate rentals after they use the government subsidies to pay off their debt on the properties. By contrast, public housing provides affordable housing in perpetuity.

There is even less lasting impact coming from the largest low-income housing program in the country, Housing Choice Vouchers. We provide a full $30 billion per year in voucher payments to landlords, often large corporate landlords, but those landlords can end their involvement at the end of each tenant’s lease, leaving the low-income renter without housing. It is another low-risk high-yield arrangement for the wealthy and raw deal for the poor: little wonder that the Project 2025 blueprint drafted by Trump supporters champions vouchers even as it slams other HUD programs.

As for likely HUD Secretary Turner, he is most associated with yet another housing giveaway to the rich. During Trump’s first administration, Turner served as executive director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council, which focused on promoting opportunity zones, a program created by Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

The program rewards the wealthy’s investment in economically distressed areas—opportunity zones—with huge tax breaks. But investigations by ProPublica and Congress show that the definition of what areas count as opportunity zones is far too broad, and the guidelines for who benefits from the investments are far too loose. As a result, money invested in expensive hotels, high-rent apartment buildings, and even luxury condominiums as a superyacht marina escapes taxation. Politically connected billionaires lobby for the land where they develop to be designated an opportunity zone, then rake in the benefits.

The Brookings Institution says opportunity zones operate as a subsidy for gentrification. “The direct tax benefits of opportunity zones will flow overwhelmingly to wealthy investors,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says. “But the tax break might not do much to help low-income communities, and it could even harm some current residents of such communities.”

So, despite the relative quiet around Scott Turner’s nomination, we know some important things about him. We know that he champions opportunity zones as an addition to the already abundant tax benefits the U.S. showers on landlords and real estate investors. And we know that he is a fierce critic of anti-poverty programs, as he has made multiple public statements about government assistance being harmful and even disastrous.

But we also know that the likely next HUD secretary is concerned about that alleged harm only when assistance is provided to the poor. The wealthy can count on Trump and Turner to keep the pipeline of government housing money wide open and flowing their way.

In recent weeks, political soothsayers have speculated about a wide variety of odious new policies the incoming Trump administration and its allies in Congress may or may not pursue. No one can predict with certainty which of those measures they will inflict on us and which they’ll forget about. But we can make one prediction with utter confidence. The White House and large bipartisan majorities in Congress will continue their lavish support for Israel’s war on Gaza, however catastrophic the results.

Washington has supplied a large share of the armaments that have allowed the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to rain death and destruction on Gaza (not to speak of Lebanon) over the past year and a quarter. Before October 7, 2023, when Hamas and other groups attacked southern Israel, that country was receiving $3.8 billion worth of American military aid annually. Since then, the floodgates have opened and $18 billion worth of arms have flowed out. The ghastly results have shocked people and governments across the globe.

In early 2024, the United Nations General Assembly and International Court of Justice condemned the war being waged on the people of Gaza and, in November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, and Médecins Sans Frontières all followed with determinations that Israel was indeed committing genocide.

This country’s laws and regulations prohibit aid to military forces deliberately killing or wounding civilians or committing other grave human rights abuses. No matter, the U.S.-to-Israel weapons pipeline has kept right on flowing, completely unchecked. A cornucopia of military funds and hardware for Israel in the early months of the war came from just two nations: 69% from the United States and 30% from Germany.

This country’s laws and regulations prohibit aid to military forces deliberately killing or wounding civilians or committing other grave human rights abuses.

Were it just about any other country than Israel committing such a genocide, Washington would have cut off arms shipments months ago. But U.S. leaders have long carved out gaping exceptions for Israel. Those policies have contributed mightily to the lethality of the onslaught, which has so far killed at least 52,000 Palestinians, 46,000 of whom are believed to have been civilians. And of those civilian dead, five of every six are also believed to have been women or children. Israeli air strikes and other kinds of bombardment have also destroyed or severely damaged almost half a million housing units, more than 500 schools, just about every hospital in Gaza, and large parts of that region’s food and water systems — all with dire consequences for health and life.

Bombs Leave Their Calling Cards

From October 2023 through October 2024, reports Brett Murphy at ProPublica, 50,000 tons (yes, tons!) of U.S. war matériel were shipped to Israel. A partial list of the munitions included in those shipments has been compiled by the Costs of War Project. The list (which, the project stresses, is far from complete) includes 2,600 250-pound bombs, 8,700 500-pound bombs, and a trove of 16,000 behemoths, each weighing in at 2,000 pounds. In January 2024, Washington also added to Israel’s inventory of U.S.-made F-15 and F-35 fighter jets. Naturally, we taxpayers footed the bill.

As Abigail Hauslohner and Michael Birnbaum of the Washington Post noted in late October, “The pace and volume of weaponry have meant that U.S. munitions make up a substantial portion of Israel’s arsenal, with an American-made fleet of warplanes to deliver the heaviest bombs to their targets.” When confronted with solid evidence that Israel has been using U.S. military aid to commit genocide, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters, “We do not have enough information to reach definitive conclusions about particular incidents or to make legal determinations.”

Really? How much information would be enough then? Isn’t it sufficient to see Israeli forces repeatedly target clinics, homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools with massive, precision-guided bombs? Isn’t it enough when the IDF targets the very “safe zones” in which they have commanded civilians to take shelter, or when they repeatedly bomb and strafe places where people have gathered around aid trucks to try to obtain some small portion of the trickle of food that the Israeli government led by Netanyahu has decided to allow into Gaza?

If the U.S. State Department’s analysts really were having trouble making “definitive conclusions about particular incidents,” then Stephan Semler was ready to lend a hand with a report at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft entitled “20 Times Israel Used U.S. Arms in Likely War Crimes.” Worse yet, his list, he points out, represents only “a small fraction of potential war crimes committed with U.S.-provided weapons,” and all 20 of the attacks he focuses on occurred at locations where no armed resistance forces seemed to be present. Here are a few incidents from the list:

When warplanes bombed a busy market in northern Gaza’s Jabalya refugee camp, killing 69 people in October 2023, U.N. investigators determined that U.S.-made 2,000-pound GBU-31 air-dropped munitions had been used. A couple of weeks later, the U.N. found that “several” GBU-31s were responsible for flattening a built-up area of more than 60,000 square feet within Gaza City, killing 91 people, 39 of them children. A weapon dropped on a residential building last January, killing 18 (including 10 children), left behind a fragment identifying it as a 250-pound Boeing GBU-39. An airstrike on a tent camp for displaced people in Rafah in May, killing 46 people, left behind a GBU-39 tailfin made in Colorado. The next month, a bomb-navigating device manufactured by Honeywell was found in the rubble of a U.N.-run school where 40 people, including 23 women and children, had been killed. In July, more than 90 people were slaughtered in a bombing of the Al-Mawasi refugee camp, an Israeli army-designated “safe zone” near the southwest corner of Gaza. A tailfin found on the scene came from a U.S.-built JDAM guidance system that’s commonly used on 1,000- or 2,000-pound bombs. Also in July, fragments of the motor and guidance system of a Lockheed-Martin Hellfire missile fired from a U.S.-made Apache helicopter were found in the remains of a U.N.-run school where refugees were sheltering. Twenty-two had been killed in the attack.

“Everyone Knew the Rules Were Different for Israel”

In December, a group of Palestinians and Palestinian-Americans filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the State Department of violating a 1997 act of Congress that prohibits arms transfers to any government that commits gross human rights violations.

As the Guardian reported, a large number of countries “have privately been sanctioned and faced consequences for committing human rights violations” under the act, which is known as the “Leahy law” after its original sponsor, former Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. But since 2020, a special committee, the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum (ILVF), has decided whether payments or shipments destined for Israel should be permitted. According to the Guardian, Israel has “benefited from extraordinary policies inside the ILVF,” under which arms transfers get a green light no matter how egregiously Israeli occupation forces may have violated human rights. In the words of a former official, “Nobody said it, but everyone knew the rules were different for Israel.”

According to the Post‘s Abigail Hauslohner and Michael Birnbaum, the process of determining whether Israel is using U.S.-supplied weapons to commit war crimes “has become functionally irrelevant, with more senior leaders at the State Department broadly dismissive of non-Israeli sources and unwilling to sign off on action plans” for disallowing aid. A midlevel department official, once stationed in Jerusalem, told Post reporters that senior officials “often dismissed the credibility of Palestinian sources, eyewitness accounts, nongovernmental organizations… and even the United Nations.” So, the arms have continued flowing, with no letup in sight.

In January 2024, Jack Lew, the Biden administration’s ambassador to Israel, sent a cable to top State Department officials urging that they approve the IDF’s request for thousands of GBU-39 bombs. Lew noted that those weapons were more precise and had a smaller blast radius than the 2,000-pound “dumb bombs” Israel had been dropping in the war’s early months. Furthermore, he claimed, their air force had a “decades-long proven track record” of avoiding civilian deaths when using the GBU-39.

That was, unfortunately, pure eyewash. At the time of the cable, Amnesty International had already shown that the Israeli Defense Forces were killing civilians with GBU-39s. The State Department nevertheless accepted Lew’s claims and approved the sale, paving the way for even more missiles and bombs to rain down on Palestinians. In reporting on the Lew cable, ProPublica‘s Brett Murphy wrote, “While the U.S. hoped that the smaller bombs would prevent unnecessary deaths, experts in the laws of war say the size of the bomb doesn’t matter if it kills more civilians than the military target justifies.” That principle implies that when there is no military target, an attack causing even one civilian casualty should be charged as a war crime.

During 2024, with its unrelenting bombardment of Gaza and then Lebanon, too, Israel chewed rapidly through its munition stocks. The Biden administration came to the rescue in late November by approving $680 million in additional munitions deliveries to Israel — and that was just the appetizer. This month, ignoring Israel’s 15 months of brutal attacks on Gaza’s population, the administration notified Congress of plans to provide $8 billion worth of additional arms, including Hellfire missiles, long-range 155-millimeter artillery shells, 500-pound bombs, and much more.

Big Death Tolls Come in Small Packages

International bodies have accused Israel of using not only bombardment but also direct starvation as a weapon, which would qualify as yet another kind of war crime. In early 2024, responding to pressure from advocacy groups, Joe Biden signed a national security memo designated NSM-20. It required the State Department to halt the provision of armaments to any country arbitrarily restricting the delivery of food, medical supplies, or other humanitarian aid to the civilian population of an area where that country is using those armaments. But the memo has made virtually no difference.

In April, the two top federal authorities on humanitarian aid — the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department’s refugee bureau — submitted reports showing that Israel had indeed deliberately blocked food and medical shipments into Gaza. Under NSM-20, such actions should have triggered a cutoff of arms shipments to the offending country. But when the reports touched off a surge of outrage among the department’s rank and file and demands for an arms embargo, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other top brass steamrolled all objections and approved continued shipments, according to Brett Murphy of ProPublica.

Another dimension of Israel’s war-by-starvation has been illustrated and quantified in a spatial analysis published by the British-based group Forensic Architecture. See, for example, the maps and text on pages 252–258 of their report, which reveal in stark detail the extent to which Israeli forces have ravaged agricultural lands in Gaza. Alongside bombing, shelling, and tank traffic, bulldozers have played an outsized role in the near-obliteration of that area’s food production capacity. The model D-9 bulldozers that are used to demolish Gaza’s buildings and lay waste to her farmland are manufactured by Caterpillar, whose global headquarters is in Texas.

In the early months of the war, Biden administration officials also took advantage of federal law, which doesn’t require that military aid shipments whose dollar value falls below certain limits be reported. They simply ordered that the huge quantities of arms then destined for Israel be split up into ever smaller cargoes. And so it came to pass that, during the first five months of the war, the Biden administration delivered more than 100 loads of arms. In other words, on average during that period, an American vessel laden with “precision-guided munitions, small diameter bombs, bunker busters, small arms and other lethal aid” was being unloaded at an Israeli dock once every 36 hours.

Israeli pilots have used U.S.-built fighter jets for the lion’s share of their airstrikes on Gaza and, by last summer, even more aircraft were needed to sustain such levels of bombing. Of course, jets are too big and expensive to be provided covertly, so, in August, Secretary of State Blinken publicly approved the transfer of nearly $20 billion worth of F-15 jets and other equipment to the IDF. The aircraft account for most of that sum, but the deal also includes hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ground vehicles and tank and mortar ammunition.

In September, Bernie Sanders, who served in Congress alongside Patrick Leahy from 2007 until the latter’s retirement in 2023, further enhanced the good reputation of Vermont senators by introducing three resolutions that would have blocked the State Department’s $20 billion Israel aid package. But when the measures came up for a vote in November, all Republicans, along with two-thirds of Sanders’s fellow Democrats, joined forces to vote them down. So, as always, Israel will continue to get its jets, tanks, and ammo.

With scant political opposition, the new Republican-controlled Congress and Trump White House will undoubtedly only double down on material support for Israel’s war crimes. And they are already threatening people who demonstrate publicly in support of an arms embargo with investigation, prosecution, deportation, or other kinds of attacks. Citing those and other threats, Ben Samuels of Haaretz anticipates that Trump’s promise “to crack down on pro-Palestinian sentiment in America will be a defining factor of his administration’s early days” and that “the fight against the pro-Palestinian movement might be one of the only things that has a clear path across the government” — that is, the suppression could be bipartisan. For the people of Gaza and their American supporters, 2025 could turn out to be even more horrifying than the ghastly year just passed.

On January 14 at 9:30 am, the Fox News commentator and Army National Guard Major Pete Hegseth is scheduled to be questioned by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in a confirmation hearing on President-elect Donald Trump's nomination for him to be Secretary of Defense.

I, along with many other women and men military veterans, will be at the hearing to strongly protest Hegseth's nomination and demand that the committee refuse to send the nomination forward for a vote of the entire Senate.

I am an unlikely protester. I served 29 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves. I retired as a colonel. I was also a U.S. diplomat for 16 years and was on the team that reopened the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001. I resigned from the U.S. government in March 2003 in opposition to the U.S. war on Iraq.

Sexual Assault Allegations

I will protest lackluster Army National Guard Major Pete Hegseth's nomination on several points, but my primary concern is his physical and psychological violence toward women.

I am 78 years old. I joined the Army in 1967 when less than 1% of U.S. military forces were women. Now, 17.5% of U.S. military forces are women.

Sexual assault in the military is rampant, and Hegseth has a history of sexual violence toward women. He secretly paid a financial settlement to a woman who had accused him of raping her in 2017.

Even Hegseth's mother, Penelope Hegseth, in 2018, during Hegseth's divorce proceedings from his second wife, strongly criticized his treatment of women. In an email obtained by The New York Times, Hegseth's mother wrote:

As a woman and your mother I feel I must speak out... You are an abuser of women—that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth. [...] It's time for a someone (I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women. [...] On behalf of all the women (and I know it's many) you have abused in some way, I say... get some help and take an honest look at yourself.

The Associated Press reported that "Tim Palatore, Hegseth's attorney, has revealed that the woman who made the allegations was paid an undisclosed sum in 2023 as part of a confidential settlement to head off the threat of what he described as a baseless lawsuit."

A 22-page police report was released in response to a public records request and offers the first detailed account of what the woman alleged to have transpired—one that is at odds with Hegseth's version of events. The report cited police interviews with the alleged victim, a nurse who treated her, a hotel staffer, another woman at the event, and Hegseth.

Considering the horrific history of sexual assault in the military, Hegseth's payoff to someone who has accused him of sexual assault must disqualify Hegseth from confirmation as Secretary of Defense.

With sexual assault in the military a continuing problem for women…and for men, there is no way that a person who has been involved in even allegations of sexual assault should be Secretary of Defense… or president, for that matter, but that's another issue for evangelical Christians, Catholics, and other religious conservatives who voted for Trump to explain to their daughters.

The number of sexual assaults in the U.S. military is likely two to four times higher than government estimates, according to a study from Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute. "During and beyond the 20 years of the post-9/11 wars, independent data suggest that actual sexual assault prevalence is two to four times higher than DOD estimations—75,569 cases in 2021 and 73,695 cases in 2023," the authors wrote in the report, which was released August 14, 2024.

The Costs of War Project report comes a year after a Pentagon report found that reports of sexual assault at the country's three military academies increased by over 18% between 2021 and 2022, setting a new record.

A 2016 Department of Veterans Affairs study of over 20,000 post-9/11 veterans and service members found that 41.5% of women and 4% of men experienced some form of sexual trauma while serving. One in three women and 1 in 50 men have reported military sexual trauma during VA healthcare screenings.

And finally, if the previous concern about on sexual assault allegations isn't enough to torpedo Hegseth's nomination, his statements on women's role in the military should sink his nomination.

Hegseth's Negative View of the Role of Women in the Military

In a podcast, Hegseth said the military "should not have women in combat roles" and that "men in those positions are more capable." In another podcast he said that female soldiers "shouldn't be in my infantry battalion."

U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a former Army National Guard member and a Purple Heart recipient, said Hegseth was "dangerous, plain and simple." Duckworth was one of the first women in the Army to fly combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She lost both of her legs and partial use of her right arm in 2004 after a rocket-propelled grenade struck her helicopter. "Where do you think I lost my legs? In a bar fight? I'm pretty sure I was in combat when that happened," she told CNN. "It just shows how out of touch he is with the nature of modern warfare if he thinks that we can keep women behind some sort of imaginary line, which is not the way warfare is today."

Additionally, Sen. Duckworth added: "It's frankly an insult and really troubling that Mr. Trump would nominate someone who has admitted that he's paid off a victim who has claimed rape allegations against him... This is not the kind of person you want to lead the Department of Defense."

If sexual assault issues and his negative view of women's role in the military do not convince the Senate's Armed Services Committee that Hegseth's nomination should not go forward, then the mismanagement of funds of tiny organizations compared to the massive Department of Defense budget should take him out of consideration for the extraordinary position of Secretary of Defense.

Mismanagement of Tiny Organizations Compared to the Massive Department of Defense

In the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct while in the organizations, Hegseth was forced to resign from the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran, Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.

According to CBS, "Hegseth received a six-figure severance payment and signed a non-disclosure agreement when he exited the organization Concerned Veterans of America" in 2016. "The payment came amid allegations of financial mismanagement, repeated incidents of intoxication and sexual impropriety, as well as dissension among its leaders over Hegseth's foreign policy views," CBS reported.

Prior to joining Concerned Veterans for America, Hegseth faced allegations of financial mismanagement from Vets for Freedom (VFF), where he worked from 2007 to 2010.

"Donors were concerned their money was being wasted and arranged for VFF to be merged with another organization, Military Families United, which took over most of its management," CBS reported further. "Revenue at VFF dwindled to $268,000 by 2010 and by 2011, the organization's revenue was listed as $22,000. Hegseth joined Concerned Veterans for America the following year."

Margaret Hoover, host of the PBS program "Firing Line" and a former adviser to Vets for Freedom, said in an interview on CNN that Hegseth had managed the organization "very poorly." Hoover expressed doubt about his ability to run the sprawling Defense Department when he had struggled with a staff of less than 10 people, and a budget of under $10 million.

This week, Pete Hegseth will face questions from Congress as President-elect Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense. If he is confirmed, he would become the civilian authority over the U.S. military, second only to the president. The job of secretary of defense is as difficult as it is critical. Pete Hegseth, a television presenter and author who formerly served in the National Guard, does not have the qualifications to perform this role. Worse, his values and beliefs make him a downright dangerous candidate.

Requirements of the Job

The Department of Defense is the largest federal agency, with a budget of more than $850 billion, almost 900,000 civilian employees, and oversight of 2.5 million service members. Pete Hegseth is not qualified to manage this sprawling bureaucracy—he has not served in a senior role in the military, served in the government, made national security policy, nor led any large organization, in stark contrast to the last 10 confirmed secretaries, who all had either decades of senior military service, ran large organizations, or served in governmental or policymaking roles. Hegseth headed two small nonprofit veterans advocacy organizations, though was reportedly removed from those positions due to financial mismanagement and personal and sexual misconduct.

The secretary of defense also shapes strategic decisions, advises the president on sensitive issues of national security, and engages with counterpart defense ministers in both allied and adversarial countries. The next secretary will have to perform the job during a challenging time, when existing arms control structures are collapsing, ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are threatening to pull more countries into these conflicts, and tensions in East Asia are rising. In the event of a crisis, especially a worst-case scenario involving nuclear weapons, the secretary of defense may be one of the only people the president consults. That’s why it’s extremely important the job be filled by someone with experience, a steady hand, and a proven record of seeking the best information before making decisions. In each case, Pete Hegseth falls short.

The Secretary of Defense’s Role in U.S. Nuclear Weapons

In terms of the most consequential decision anyone could face—and with little time to make it—there is no scenario worse than if U.S. early warning systems detected an incoming nuclear attack. The president would only have minutes to assess whether the warning was false or real and whether to retaliate with U.S. ICBMs. An emergency conference would be convened for the president with the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders. While the secretary of defense is not officially in the nuclear chain of command—the president has the authority to use nuclear weapons without the agreement of anyone else—the president would look to the secretary for advice.

Through his writing, candidacy for public office, and time as a Fox News contributor, we know some things about Hegseth’s personal views, and many of them are dangerous. For example, he has expressed hostility and contempt for international humanitarian law, blaming rules that protect human life for hindering the operations of the U.S. military. Hegseth has argued repeatedly that U.S. forces should ignore international humanitarian laws governing the conduct of war. The United States has a legal and moral obligation to follow these rules, and has devoted significant resources to operationalizing that commitment. International law not only protects civilians and soldiers in war, but helps recruit allies and undergirds support at home.

Hegseth’s disregard for international humanitarian law and the rules of armed conflict is consistent with his alarmingly cavalier attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. In his book The War on Warriors, discussing the United States’ use of nuclear weapons in World War II, Hegseth writes, “They won. Who cares.” Meanwhile, the few remaining Japanese survivors of nuclear weapons are trying desperately to get the world to understand the horror of nuclear weapons and eliminate them before they can be used again.

Nuclear risks are rising globally. Arms control is on life support. The military is pursuing an unnecessary trillion-dollar project to replace every weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Given serious concerns about his qualifications, dangerous beliefs and values, and lack of meaningful track record, Hegseth is a poor choice for the consequential position of secretary of defense. The members of the Senate Armed Services Committee should ask hard questions in this week’s hearing. Given the enormity of the challenges facing the next secretary, the United States deserves someone with the experience, expertise, and judgment to deal with them wisely.

Once again, the Democratic Party is in crisis.

Activists both inside and outside the party have a big question to answer: Do insiders pivot to the center or the left? Do outsiders join the party or abandon it?

In both cases, the choice should be obvious: embrace the progressive economic agenda (move left) and enter the party en masse.

This moment of crisis is an opportunity to get the party on track, to turn it into what people want and need. Indeed, the table is set for us to transform American politics and save our democracy.

Beginning with the 2016 election, the American political system became defined by three competing blocks squeezed into a two-party system:

1. On the right, the Trumpian reactionaries,

2. In the middle, the neoliberal status quo, running from the Clinton-wing of the Democratic Party through the Romney-wing of the GOP

3. On the left, the progressives, defined by Sen. Bernie Sanders' insurgent presidential campaigns.

This new tripartite competition represented a sharp break from the neoliberal consensus that had defined both parties from 1992 through 2015. The abrupt shift in 2016 was the result of widespread dissatisfaction with a contemporary economic order defined by massive wealth inequality and, for the vast majority of the population, increasingly limited horizons, a life of overwork combined with non-stop precarity.

Trump will fail to provide the epoch-defining, shared economic prosperity he has promised the public. Rather, economic outcomes will be familiar, only more so: the few winners will win bigger, while the masses will continue to struggle just to tread water.

Now, for the second time in eight years, Trump and his minions will have power in Washington. And for the second time, in all likelihood, they will fail to alter how the economy performs for the average household.

The reasons for this are simple. To date, in a modern industrialized/technological society like ours, there is only one set of economic strategies that has been proven to constrain wealth disparity and distribute greater benefits to the majority of the population. This successful model was pioneered by FDR during the New Deal era. Then, after World War II, it was pursued in all the other prosperous democracies around the world. Broadly speaking, this is the program re-introduced to the American public by Bernie Sanders and the progressives, albeit updated for the 21st century.

The economic crises of the 1970s, created an opportunity for President Ronald Reagan to take American economic policy in a new direction in the 1980s, with less direct government intervention and more reliance on markets to determine how society made and spent its wealth. With President Clinton in the 1990s, the Democratic Party effectively dropped its opposition to the core tenets of Reaganomics, embracing what came to be known as neoliberalism. Then, in 2008, the entire global neoliberal financial system essentially imploded—and, while political leaders and economic elites tried to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, the public has remained recalcitrant, viewing the whole system as rigged for the already wealthy and their sycophants—which sounds a lot like something Donald Trump might say. But do his policies really break with a system that benefits rich people like him?

Trump's program, while moving away from neoliberal orthodoxy in a few ways (trade policy, immigration), keeps the basic architecture intact, and doubles down on some core neoliberal policies: tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deregulation, and the defunding of state programs. This is why Trump will fail to provide the epoch-defining, shared economic prosperity he has promised the public. Rather, economic outcomes will be familiar, only more so: the few winners will win bigger, while the masses will continue to struggle just to tread water.

However, Trump is intent on fulfilling other campaign promises that will transform American society. His cabinet nominees show that he is serious about establishing an authoritarian state apparatus intolerant of dissent.

This is why the current fight for the soul of the Democratic Party is so essential.

If the Moderates triumph and Democrats remain the party of the status quo, clinging to a zombie ideology that cannot deliver what Americans want and expect from life—it will not be able to vanquish reactionary populism. The constitutional republic will, at best, remain in peril.

The only choice for the Democratic Party if it hopes to succeed is to reject the political establishment, and embrace progressive economic principles, such as those listed in PDA’s 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights. Registered Democrats overwhelmingly support each item of this ambitious progressive agenda. Indeed, the most coveted of all demographics, Young Americans enthusiastically embrace this program by similar margins.

So, this should be straightforward. Rank-and-file Democrats want a progressive party. Unfortunately, the defining feature of American politics in the neoliberal era is that money matters more than people. The heretofore dominant wing of the Democratic Party, aka the Party ''establishment,'' is first-and foremost a money-raising behemoth.

This is why progressives must bring their A game. Many party loyalists embrace centrist policies out of a misguided notion of pragmatism. Our goal is not to chase these Democrats away, but to persuade them to support something more ambitious and inspiring. We have a very compelling case to make on all fronts. We can win them over.

We must reject the influence of big money, demand its removal from political campaigns, and limit its role in lobbying to a level commensurate with what an average household, or small business, can afford annually.

Similarly, we have to welcome outsiders into the party, assuring them that a progressive Democratic Party will be all-inclusive and will listen to its members.

At the same time, we must be unwavering in our commitments. Perhaps most significantly, we must reject the influence of big money, demand its removal from political campaigns, and limit its role in lobbying to a level commensurate with what an average household, or small business, can afford annually.

Yet, we have to be humble about the task ahead. The capitalism of the 2020s is very different from that of the 1930's—and transforming the economy on the order of FDR or Reagan requires extended political success, as well as buy-in from people and sectors across the society.

But we also shouldn’t sell ourselves short. We are promising an unrivaled reward for everyone who joins with us. The opportunity to make history, to be a part of something bigger than ourselves; to establish the world’s first multi-racial democracy in the most diverse country in human history, a society that will stand apart in a globalized world, as the rejoinder to ethno-nationalism and fascism, informed by the collective wisdom of all the world’s cultures; a land of unprecedented wealth, well-distributed among its citizens, and of limitless opportunity; home to the world’s leading universities, with unparalleled research capacity; a strong country at peace with the world, in harmony with the planet; a society of equals; a democracy; an America as good as its promise.

The first step to getting there is for one of the two dominant political parties to embrace the progressive economic policy program, which has a proven track-record and can deliver the prosperous middle-class society that Americans crave.

In a forthcoming article, I will explain why mass participation and direct engagement with the Democratic Party is essential to the success of this program and the maintenance of American democracy.

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

Over the past three years, a collective of volunteer researchers, lawyers, and commentators created The Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal, dedicated to holding accountable four weapon manufacturing corporations based in the U.S. Their tribunal amassed copious evidence to prove that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), and General Atomics (a company which manufactures weaponized drones) are guilty of committing war crimes. On January 15, 2025, as the world marks the birth of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, a press conference will announce the tribunal's verdicts and release the report of 10 international jurors who have weighed the evidence submitted to them.

Of necessity, the evidence was culled from examining a limited range of devastatingly criminal U.S. "forever wars," of brutal and needless wars of choice. The tribunal focused on specific U.S. war crimes and crimes against humanity in the invasions, occupations, and aerial assaults that followed the "9/11" attacks in 2001.

What if we could enlarge the tribunal, bringing before it war crimes occurring right now, the U.S.-assisted massacres we watch in real time on our phone and computer screens?

Certainly, one witness we would beg to appear for testimony would be Dr. Husam Abu Safiya, who was the director of Gaza's Kamal Adwan Hospital when such a place existed. The tribunal would wish to amplify his testimony on the harrowing weeks of siege during which Israel subjected his hospital to artillery and aerial bombardment. They would help to record his story of witnessing assassinations targeting medical staff, field executions of people clutching white flags in an attempt to surrender, the hospital's forced evacuation with at-gunpoint humiliation stripping of women and girls. The initial attacks disabled the hospital's operational capacities by targeting power generators and oxygen production equipment, but now an iconic photo shows Dr. Abu Safiya walking toward an Israeli tank through collapsed buildings and rubble. The tribunal would like to interview him, but he is being held without charge by Israel's military.

Our tribunal would surely turn to three of the world's most crucial international human rights groups for testimony.

On December 5, 2024, Amnesty International concluded that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Its research documents how, during its military offensive launched in the wake of the deadly Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, "Israel has unleashed hell and destruction on Palestinians in Gaza brazenly, continuously, and with total impunity."

On December 19, 2024 Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) stated that "repeated Israeli military attacks on Palestinian civilians over the last 14 months, the dismantling of the healthcare system and other essential infrastructure, the suffocating siege, and the systematic denial of humanitarian assistance are destroying the conditions of life in Gaza." The report says there are "clear signs of ethnic cleansing" by Israel as it wages war in Gaza.

Also issued on December 19, 2024 was a report from Human Rights Watch, entitled "Extermination and Acts of Genocide," stating that Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians in Gaza by denying them clean water, which it says legally amounts to acts of genocide and extermination.

Corroborating the testimony of healthcare workers and human rights advocates in Gaza would be Pope Francis' January 9, 2025 message to international diplomats. Pope Francis denounced Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, calling the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian enclave "very serious and shameful." Pope Francis referenced the deaths of children who froze to death because of Israel's destruction of infrastructure: "We cannot in any way accept the bombing of civilians. We cannot accept that children are freezing to death because hospitals have been destroyed or a country's energy network has been hit."

Recommendations made by jurors in the Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal call for major weapon makers to pay reparations for suffering caused. They echo the words of Pope Francis, whose message to the assemblage of diplomats made this appeal:

With the money spent on weapons and other military expenditures, let us establish a global fund that can finally put an end to hunger and favor development in the most impoverished countries, so that their citizens will not resort to violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave their countries in order to seek a more dignified life.

Considering such testimony from so many diverse sources, one might expect that U.S. lawmakers would reevaluate their murderous, unwavering support of Israel. Instead, on January 9, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to sanction the International Criminal Court in protest of its arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister.

Who are the criminals? U.S. news coverage of five former or current presidents gathered for the funeral of President Jimmy Carter never hinted that hideous wars of choice along with massive increases in weapon sales had marked the administration of each of the five. There was no mention of President Joe Biden's order to send $8 billion dollars of weapons to Gaza. This gathering of U.S. presidents is referred to as "The World's Most Exclusive Club." Exclusive indeed. What other club of so few has caused so much suffering to so many?

On April 7, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famously insightful, prophetic speech about another illegal U.S. war of choice—"Beyond Viet Nam: A Time to Break the Silence"—in which Dr. King said, "Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken: the role of those who make peaceful resolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments."

Dr. King's verdict, in this speech, on the momentous first anniversary of which he was taken from us, was that "this business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

The four defendants before our tribunal certainly did their part to pressure these five other criminals toward their varied crimes, but we all have a choice to hold ourselves accountable in the face of Dr. King's warning that we are approaching spiritual death. One step toward reconciling with wisdom, justice, and love would be to demand the release of Dr. Husam Abu Safiya from an Israeli prison so that we could humbly learn from him about war crimes and reparations.

President-elect Trump said on January 9th that he is planning a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the war in Ukraine. He said “Putin wants to meet,” because “we have to get that war over with.” So what are the chances that a new administration in Washington can break the deadlock and finally bring peace to Ukraine?

During both of his election campaigns, Trump said he wanted to end the wars the U.S. was involved in. But in his first term, Trump himself exacerbated all the major crises he is now confronting. He escalated Obama’s military “pivot to Asia” against China, disregarded Obama’s fears that sending “lethal” aid to Ukraine would lead to war with Russia, withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran, and encouraged Netanyahu’s ambitions to land-grab and massacre his way to a mythical “Greater Israel.”

However, of all these crises, the one that Trump keeps insisting he really wants to resolve is the war in Ukraine, which Russia launched and the U.S. and NATO then chose to prolong, leading to hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian casualties. The Western powers have until now been determined to fight this war of attrition to the last Ukrainian, in the vain hope that they can somehow eventually defeat and weaken Russia without triggering a nuclear war.

Trump rightly blames Biden for blocking the peace agreement negotiated between Russia and Ukraine in March and April 2022, and for the three more years of war that have resulted from that deadly and irresponsible decision.

Neutrality would give Ukraine a chance to transform itself from a New Cold War disaster zone, where greedy foreign oligarchs gobble up its natural resources on the cheap, into a bridge connecting east and west, whose people can reap the benefits of all kinds of commercial, social and cultural relations with all their neighbors.

While Russia should be condemned for its invasion, Trump and his three predecessors all helped to set the stage for war in Ukraine: Clinton launched NATO’s expansion into eastern Europe, against the advice of leading American diplomats; Bush promised Ukraine it could join NATO, ignoring even more urgent diplomatic warnings; and Obama supported the 2014 coup that plunged Ukraine into civil war.

Trump himself began sending weapons to Ukraine to fight the self-declared “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk, even though the Minsk II Accord’s OSCE-monitored ceasefire was largely holding and had greatly reduced the violence of the civil war from its peak in 2014 and 2015.

Trump’s injection of U.S. weapons was bound to reinflame the conflict and provoke Russia, especially as one of the first units trained on new U.S. weapons was the infamous Azov Regiment, which Congress cut off from U.S. arms and training in 2018 due to its central role as a hub for transnational neo-Nazi organizing.

So what will it take to negotiate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine? The answer has been hidden in plain sight, obscured by the rote repetition of deceptive rhetoric from Ukrainian and Western officials, claiming that Russia has refused to negotiate or that, if not stopped in Ukraine, Russia will invade NATO countries, such as Poland or the Baltic states.

The agreement that had Ukrainian negotiators popping champagne corks when they returned from Turkey at the end of March 2022 was referred to by all sides as a “Neutrality Agreement,” and nothing has changed in the strategic picture to suggest that Ukrainian neutrality is any less central to peace today.

A neutral Ukraine means that it would not join NATO or participate in joint NATO military exercises, nor would it allow foreign military bases on its territory. This would satisfy Russia’s security interests, while Ukraine’s security would be guaranteed by other powerful nations, including NATO members.

The fact that Russia was ready to so quickly end the war on that basis is all the evidence an objective observer should need to recognize that Ukrainian neutrality was always Russia’s most critical war aim. And the celebrations of the Ukrainian negotiators on their return from Turkey confirm that the Ukrainians willingly accepted Ukrainian neutrality as the basis for a peace agreement. "Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it,” Zelensky declared in March 2022.

Neutrality would give Ukraine a chance to transform itself from a New Cold War disaster zone, where greedy foreign oligarchs gobble up its natural resources on the cheap, into a bridge connecting east and west, whose people can reap the benefits of all kinds of commercial, social and cultural relations with all their neighbors.

While Russia should be condemned for its invasion, Trump and his three predecessors all helped to set the stage for war in Ukraine

Biden justified endlessly prolonging the war by stressing territorial questions and insisting that Ukraine must recover all the territory it has lost since the 2014 coup. By contrast, Russia has generally prioritized the destruction of enemy forces and NATO weapons over occupying more territory.

As Russia inexorably occupies the remainder of Donetsk oblast (province) after three years of war, it has still not moved to occupy Kramatorsk or Sloviansk, the large twin cities in the north of that oblast where 250,000 people live. They were among the first cities to rise up against the post-coup government in 2014, and were besieged and recaptured by Ukrainian government forces in the first major battle of the civil war in July 2014.

Neither has Russia pushed further westward into the neighboring oblasts of Kharkiv or Dnipropetrovsk. Nor has it launched a much-predicted offensive to occupy Odesa in the south-west, despite its strategic location on the Black Sea, its history as a Russian city with a Russian-speaking population, the infamous massacre of 42 anti-coup protesters there by a mob led by Right Sector in May 2014, and its current role as a hotbed of draft resistance in Ukraine.

If Russia’s goal was to annex as much of Ukraine as possible, or to use it as a stepping-stone to invade Poland or other European countries, as Western politicians have regularly claimed, Ukraine’s largest cities would have been prime targets.

But it has done the opposite. It even withdrew from Kherson in November 2022, after occupying it for eight months. NATO leaders had previously decided that the fall of Kherson to Ukrainian government forces would be the chance they were waiting for to reopen peace negotiations from a position of strength, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley argued they should “seize the moment” to do so. Instead, President Biden put the kibosh on yet another chance for peace.

When Congress approved another $60 billion for weapons shipments to Ukraine in April 2024, Senator and now Vice President-elect J.D. Vance voted against the bill. Vance explained his vote in an op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that the war was not winnable and that Biden should start talking to Putin.

In explaining why Ukraine could not win, Vance relied heavily on testimony by NATO’s top military commander, U.S. General Christopher Cavoli, to the House Armed Services Committee. Vance wrote that even the most optimistic projections of the impact of the weapons bill could not make up for the massive imbalance between Russian and Ukrainian armaments and forces. Cavoli told the committee that Russia already outgunned Ukraine by 5-to-1 in artillery shells, and that a European push to produce a million shells in the past year had yielded only 600,000.

While Ukraine was desperate for more Patriot missiles to intercept 4,000 Russian missile and drone strikes per month, the U.S. could only provide 650 in the next year, even with the additional funds, due to the massive amount of weapons being shipped to Israel or already promised to Taiwan.

Both Russia and Ukraine have covered up their casualties with propaganda, underestimating their own casualties and exaggerating their enemies’, to mislead their own people, their allies and their enemies alike. General Cavoli testified under oath that over 315,000 Russian soldiers had been killed and wounded. But he went on to say that, by calling up reserves and conscripting new troops, Russia had not only made up those losses but increased its overall troop strength by 15%, and was well on the way to building a 1.5 million-strong army.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has a recruitment crisis, due to an underlying demographic shortage of young men caused by a very low birth-rate in the 1990s, when living standards and life expectancy plummeted under the impact of Western-backed economic shock treatment. This has now been severely compounded by the impacts of the war.

Ella Libanova, a demographer at Ukraine’s National Academy of Science, estimated to Reuters in July 2023 that, with so many people leaving the country and building new lives in other countries as the war drags on, the total population in government-held areas might already have fallen as low as 28 million, from a total population of 45 million ten years ago. It must surely be even lower now.

Based on huge imbalances in artillery shells and other weapons, Ukrainian and U.S. claims that Ukraine has suffered much lower casualties than Russia are frankly unbelievable, and some analysts believe Ukrainian casualties have been much higher than Russia’s. The declining morale of its troops, increased draft resistance, desertion, and emigration from Ukraine have all combined to shrink the available pool of new conscripts.

Vance concluded, “Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.”

In his press conference on January 3rd, President-elect Trump framed the need for peace in Ukraine as a question of basic humanity. “I don’t think it’s appropriate that I meet [Putin] until after the 20th, which I hate because every day people are being—many, many young people are being killed, soldiers,” Trump said.

More and more Ukrainians agree. While opinion polls soon after Russia’s invasion showed 72% wanting to fight until victory, that is now down to 38%. Most Ukrainians want quick negotiations and are open to making territorial concessions as part of a peace deal.

In recent interviews, President Zelensky has been softening his position, suggesting that Ukraine is willing to cede territory to Russia to end the war as long as the rest of the country is protected by a “NATO umbrella.” But NATO membership for Ukraine has always been totally unacceptable to the Russians, and so the 2022 neutrality agreement instead provided for security guarantees by which other countries, including individual NATO members, would guarantee Ukraine’s security.

Trump’s peace plan is rumored to entail freezing the current geographical positions and shelving Ukraine’s accession to NATO for 20 years. But continuing to dangle NATO membership in front of Ukraine, as the U.S. has bullied NATO into doing since 2008, is a root cause of this conflict, not a solution. Neutrality, on the other hand, resolves the root causes of the conflict for all the countries involved, and therefore provides a stable and sustainable solution.

There are many things we both disagree with Donald Trump about. But the need for peace in Ukraine is one thing we agree on. We hope Trump understands that Ukrainian neutrality is the key to peace and the best hope for the future of Ukraine, Russia, the United States and Europe, and, in fact, for the survival of human civilization.

Rather than be followed by the expressions of sympathy and shock one might usually expect, the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York was also greeted with ridicule and even approval by a substantial portion of the public. Worried that copycat killers might take that response as a cue to replicate the alleged actions of accused shooter Luigi Mangione, CEOs and their companies are reconsidering their security measures.

With the Inauguration days away, how does this inform the security landscape for that high-profile event? Are CEOs paranoid or are they really at increased risk now? What can they and ordinary people worried about their personal security do to make themselves safer?

Ted Rall and Manila Chan ask these questions to security expert Mark Ledlow, a former US Marine and founder of Ledlow Security.

The post TMI Show Ep 55: “CEOs in the Crosshairs” first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 55: “CEOs in the Crosshairs” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

This past week, Washington D.C. was witness to a stark study in contrasts: The solemn dignity involved in the nation’s farewell to former President Jimmy Carter and the blustery antics accompanying former President Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House.

There couldn’t be any two men more different than Carter and Trump. And as if to make that point, one day’s newspaper featured headlines that virtually screamed across the front page at each other. One read “Celebrating a ‘servant of the people,’” with the subhead “As Carter arrived in Washington, many gather to honor his humility and decency.” On the other side, we read “Trump won’t rule out coercion to expand U.S. map,” with the subhead, “He eyes Panama Canal and Greenland.”

In the same week Americans were mourning the death of one former president who was praised for his service to others, his humility, honesty, and commitment to peace, democracy, and human rights, they were also awaiting the return of another former president who was threatening to use coercion to “take over” foreign countries and pardon hundreds of people convicted of the violent attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

There is another factor that unites these two former presidents: Despite their obvious differences, they reflect two distinct sides of the American reality.

The Panama Canal story alone tells the story of the differences between the two men and their approaches to governance. With Latin America in turmoil and many Panamanians growing restive with U.S. control of the Canal Zone that not only cut their country in half, but also negatively impacted their society in other ways, Carter realized that it was time to negotiate a deal that respected Panama’s sovereignty. Trump, on the other hand, wants to renege on the treaty, asserting that the canal is “ours,” claiming that “we lost thousands of lives” building it. In fact, it’s estimated that, while over 25,000 Panamanians perished digging the canal, very few Americans died.

Additional contrasts between the two men would include: one was humble, the other always boastful; one devoted his life to others, the other a narcissist; one said “I will never lie to you” (and fact-checkers were unable to identify a single one), while fact-checkers have identified 33,000 falsehoods told by the other in just four years; one was faithful to his wife for 77 years—let’s just say that the other was not; one attributed his successes to others, the other boastfully claims everything for himself; and one was born in a small southern town and after his term in office returned to that simple life until his final days, the other was born into wealth in New York City and has surrounded himself with the trappings of ostentatious excess.

While all of these differences between the two must be noted, there are some characteristics they share. First and foremost is the fact that both were elected president of the United States as insurgents and agents of change because, in their respective eras, both understood and responded to a felt need in the public’s mood. Carter was elected while the nation was still reeling from the double traumas of Vietnam and the Nixon resignation. He parlayed his simple rural style to establish himself as the antithesis of a typical politician. He was comfortable and steady, and that’s what voters were craving back then. For his part, Trump understood that many voters had been unsettled by social, economic, political, and cultural changes and were reeling from multiple traumas from 9/11 and the failed war in Iraq to the aftershocks of the economic collapse of 2008-9. Voters were wary of typical politicians who either didn’t understand or didn’t care about just how angry and upset they were. Carter promised honesty and an end to turbulence. Trump promised to shake things up at whatever the cost.

There is another factor that unites these two former presidents: Despite their obvious differences, they reflect two distinct sides of the American reality. We are a nation capable of doing great and good things. We are also a nation that has shown itself to be capable of doing evil. We have welcomed millions of refugees, provided humanitarian support to those suffering in the wake of catastrophic events, and have led efforts to support equality and human rights. At the same time, we recall that our nation was born with the original sins of slavery and genocide; continues to struggle with racism; still has a xenophobic streak that periodically rears its head; and has committed or aided and abetted war crimes in countries as far flung as Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, and Palestine.

We can never deny either of these sides of our nation’s history and “personality,” because in a real sense both are who we have been. And more importantly, both can be who we are today and who we can become in the future. If we allow ourselves to forget that the capacity for evil is always residing under the surface, we become vulnerable to its allure. At the same time, if we forget that we have the capacity to do good and great things, then we deny our ability to make things better and lose hope in our possibility to make change.

The funeral of Jimmy Carter just days away from the inauguration of Donald Trump has presented us with a choice and a challenge. Which path will we take, and which America will we become?

Two billionaire publishers, the Washington Post’s Jeff Bezos and the LA Times Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked their editorial page editors from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election (a Washington Post editorial cartoonist than quit when her cartoon depicting Jeff Bezos, Son-Shiong and other billionaires abasing themselves in front of Trump was killed). If you believe the Washington Post’s slogan that ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness,’ their owner was the first to switch off the light.

Soon-Shiong also blocked an editorial asking the Senate to perform its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on Trump’s cabinet picks. Next ABC News (owned by Disney) agreed to pay $15 million in a settlement of a Trump defamation lawsuit plus $1 million in attorney fees because George Stephanopoulos said on his Sunday show that Trump was found liable for the ‘rape’ of writer E. Jean Carroll. Actually, he was found guilty of ‘sexual abuse’ because a New York civil jury believed her claim that he forced his fingers into her vagina but was uncertain if he also used his penis. New York law states only penile penetration is considered rape. This was a case ABC could have easily pursued in court but made a political—really a business—decision not to because Disney has less courage than a mouse.

Trump is now suing the Des Moines Register and their pollster for a pre-election poll suggesting he would not do as well as he did in Iowa. And, while you probably shouldn’t be getting your news from Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg has also announced the end of fact-checking on his Meta platforms in the U.S. which won him a compliment from president-elect Trump.

While billionaire 'tech bros’ like Elon Musk and Zuckerberg embrace Trump and Trumpism, working journalists are portrayed as part of an elite that he has defined as ‘enemies of the people’ mainly for exposing the machinations of those in power including the president-elect.

It seems likely that top-down self-censorship may preempt the expected legal attacks on critical coverage from the incoming administration that has been promised by Trump’s pick for FBI Director, Kash Patel and, of course, by Trump himself.

This is in large measure the result not simply of right-wing ascendency in national politics but of a long-term decline and corporate consolidation of American journalism. Also, helping to undermine the public’s ability to stay informed is the rise of the internet as a selective news source which generates revenue by reinforcing existing biases through algorithmic infrastructure that aims to keep viewers online longer.

While billionaire tech ‘bros’ like Elon Musk and Zuckerberg embrace Trump and Trumpism, working journalists are portrayed as part of an elite that he has defined as ‘enemies of the people’ mainly for exposing the machinations of those in power including the president-elect.

The proliferation of disinformation, misinformation, and incitement to hate on social media or through the use of AI fakes also raises questions about who’s left to mediate what passes for news and to sort facts from fabrication...

I’ve worked as a freelance journalist for half a century. According to a study by the job recruitment company Zippia there are close to 15,000 freelance reporters working in the U.S. whose demographics skew slightly more white and female, than the nation as a whole and who earn an average of $61,000 a year compared to full-time journalists who average $86,000. Freelancers make up a third of the 45,000 working journalists in the U.S. so figure your news is coming not from some media “elite,” that promote “fake news,” but working people like myself covering wars, politics, pandemics and the climate emergency.

Earlier in this century I got to train colleagues in Poland, Turkey, Tunisia and elsewhere on environmental reporting. I remember in Turkey going over some of the basics of investigative reporting including always keeping good notes and tapes stored and dated including by year as some stories become beats that can continue over a lifetime. Sergei Kiselyov, a Ukrainian colleague who’d covered the Chernobyl disaster, offered an addendum, “I’d just suggest you also keep your notes and files somewhere other than your home or office so that when the police come to look for them, they won’t be there.” This tip is worth keeping in mind over the next several years.

Most journalists of course are less likely to be jailed than to be laid off. Many of my friends and colleagues who worked in newspapers are now freelancers like myself, the newspaper industry being in a near terminal stage of collapse. This is largely due to loss of revenue to online advertising, corporate consolidation, and hedge fund predation where operating enterprises are bought up, wrung out (staff layoffs focused on older higher-paid reporters doing complex investigative work), and then sold off for parts (printing presses, data-bases, real-estate). This has resulted in massive job loss. Newsroom employment dropped 26 percent between 2008 and 2020 according to a study by the Pew Research Center and continues today. I know of one Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who agreed to a one-third pay cut rather than see a second wave of layoffs further hollow out their publication.

Most journalists of course are less likely to be jailed than to be laid off.

The loss of competitive newspapers has resulted in the absence of a lot of good reporting, particularly at the local and regional level where many papers continue to shut down each year. Since most local TV news stations depend on local newspapers for their hard news this has also had a cascading effect on the public’s ability to access reliable information about those with and in power and how they’re wielding it from zoning boards to local corporations and government agencies. Many people have turned instead to unreliable online social media including bloggers and influencers to get their information.

The proliferation of disinformation, misinformation, and incitement to hate on social media or through the use of AI fakes also raises questions about who’s left to mediate what passes for news and to sort facts from fabrication, particularly at a time when much of the public now agree with Donald Trump. An October 2024 Gallup poll found 69% of the public has either “no trust” or “not very much confidence” in the media. When I began working in 1974 over 70% of the public trusted the news media. And with some reason.

When I was covering the wars in Central America I asked my friend photo-journalist John Hoagland how he saw our role. “I don’t believe in objectivity because everyone has a point of view,” he said. “What I say is I’m not going to be a propagandist for anyone. If you do something right, I’m going to take your picture. If you do something wrong, I’ll take your picture also.” He was killed in crossfire a year later. Ironically the best recent movie on how reporters actually behave under fire and under stress is ‘Civil War’ that is set in a near-future America at war with itself.

With the “legacy” network news operations of ABC, CBS and NBC now under the control of Disney, Comcast, and ViacomCBS, major corporations dependent on the regulatory whims of Donald Trump, and with Trump’s talk of eliminating public funding for PBS (and its ‘News Hour’ and ‘Frontline’ reporting) plus ‘news outlets’ such as Fox and the Sinclair Broadcast Group that owns 294 TV stations covering 40% of U.S. households, acting more as propaganda arms of the MAGA movement than traditional sources of broadcast journalism, the likelihood of much critical mainstream coverage during a second Trump administration is doubtful even before the expected lawsuits, indictments, and jailing of journalists.

To paraphrase a quote from a darker time, “First they came for the journalists and then we don’t know what happened.”

Palestine solidarity activists, students, and scholars are facing an astronomic rise in attacks for calling attention to Israeli policies in the occupied territories, for naming the assault on Gaza a genocide, even for mentioning the health impacts of the massive bombing and killing campaign and calling for a ceasefire. Project Esther—a right-wing task force from the Trumpian Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 and designed to crush the pro-Palestine movement—is about to make the repression much worse.

This creates a problem for liberal Zionists in the U.S., deeply allied with Israel but worried about the rightward political swing and distressed by the carnage in Gaza, violence of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the widening of Israeli attacks in the region. These progressive folks get all tangled up when words like “war crimes” and “genocide,” as well as ending military funding to Israel or support for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, get mentioned in the very next sentence. Repeatedly, liberal Zionists respond to this reality with very illiberal behavior, pulling financial donations from universities and organizations, resigning from groups and institutions they otherwise support, condemning friends, children, and grandchildren for engaging in protests, encampments, and other unruly behavior, complaining that spaces are now “unsafe” for Jews, that “antisemitism” is rampant on college campuses.

Historically, the price of Israel’s settler colonial origins is the hostility of the people who lost their land, homes, and lives towards the people who promulgated this catastrophe. Moshe Dayan, one of the founding Israeli generals, famously stated “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” The strategies of tolerance, negotiation, compromise, humility, respect for international law and human rights, were never woven into the Israeli psyche.

It is possible to be horrified by the suffering of those killed, harmed, kidnapped on October 7 or fleeing to bomb shelters as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian drones and missiles are fired over Israel, and at the same time, to call the brutal, unrelenting assault on Gaza a genocide. There are increasing reports in mainstream media as well human rights organizations from the United Nations to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, to B’Tselem. They document Israeli violations of multiple international laws about the rules of war, violations of the protected status of health care institutions and health care workers, massive civilian injuries and casualties, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, educational facilities, sanitation, water, and agriculture.

At the same time, Israeli allegations promote the idea that Palestinians are savage, hypersexualized animals, capable of horrific acts of violence, and thus, deserving of slaughter. This tactic was common in the Jim Crow south with the descriptions of Black men attacked and lynched. The language is also mirrored in Trump’s depictions of undocumented people coming into the United States. The foundational racism is obvious. The double standard exists because of societal assumptions about who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad,” which men are inherently decent and which men are capable of egregious violent behavior. If Gazans are all “animals,” “terrorists,” “Jew-haters,” then it is much easier to kill them with a clear conscience.

Exceptionalizing Jewish trauma only leads to a complete disregard for international law, proportionality in war, and the degradation of the Israeli military’s claim to be “moral,” to have any respect for the modern rules of warfare, the protected status of hospitals, the dignity of every human being, the safeguarded status of civilians.

When liberal Zionists object to the use of the word “genocide” as “too political,” it reflects their inability to grapple with the historical and current truths about the Israeli government and military and their demonization of Palestinians as less than human. When folks attack people for advocating for a ceasefire, (which is the first step towards ending the assault and protecting what is left of Gaza and releasing hostages), they often charge them with “antisemitism.” This is a descent into a tribal abyss that cannot see the “enemy” as human; cannot imagine the day after when the war ends and over two million hungry, sick Gazans are faced with unimaginable trauma and vast needs to survive and remake their lives; cannot remember that the only time a significant number of hostages were released alive was during a ceasefire.

The time is long overdue for liberal Zionists to find the courage to take a long hard look at their uncritical support for the actions of the Israeli state as it becomes increasingly indefensible and destabilizing, a pariah state that has lost its claim to be a so-called democracy (however flawed) that is endangering Jews in the country and abroad as well as Palestinians everywhere.

Elon Musk spent more than a quarter billion dollars to back Trump and other MAGA Republican candidates in last year's U.S. elections. He did so not simply because he has a lot to gain from Trump’s presidency, which he does, but also because of his own ideological proclivities.

Musk is a right-wing extremist and not content to limit his meddling to U.S. politics. In fact, he is clearly on a personal mission to advance the cause of the far right across the western world. Hence his foray into European politics.

Ahead of next month’s federal election in Germany, Musk took to his social platform X on December 20 to proclaim that “only the AfD can save Germany” while describing chancellor Olaf Scholz as an “incompetent fool,” urging him in turn to resign, and President Frank-Walter Steinmeier as an “anti-democratic tyrant.” He doubled down a few days later on his full-throated support for the far-right party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), in an op-ed for the prominent German newspaper Die Welt, calling it “the last spark of hope” for the country. He went on to say that AfD “can lead the country into a future where economic prosperity, cultural integrity and technological innovations are not just wishes, but reality.” Incidentally, Musk—like all good imperialist investors—feels that his business investment in Germany gives him the right to make incursions into the country’s political condition.

The surge of the far right and extreme nationalism on the continent have echoes of the 1930s. But Elon Musk is on the wrong side of history.

Not content to limit his meddling to German politics, Musk has tried to stir up division and hatred in British politics by targeting Prime Minister Keir Starmer and top officials. He has accused the government of “releasing convicted pedophiles” and sided with jailed far-right activist Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party though he has called for Farage to be replaced as leader because “he doesn’t have what it takes” to lead the party. Apparently, even Nigel Farage isn’t sufficiently far right enough for Musk.

Europe’s leaders have denounced Musk’s meddling and support for far-right movements, but can they stop him? Musk is using the social media platform to communicate directly with hundreds of millions, bypassing traditional media channels. The billionaire owner of X has more than 200 million followers. Spreading lies and misinformation is easy and fast. MIT researchers have found that fake news spread 10 times faster than real news on social media. And it will become even easier and faster to do so after Mark Zukerberg’s decision to cancel fact-checking on his social media platforms, a move that Elon Musk lost no time in applauding.

On Thursday, Jan. 9, Musk held a livestream chat on X with AfD leader Alice Weidel that lasted more than an hour. Musk’s purpose for holding this discussion was to show people that Weidel is a very reasonable leader even though her party has been put under observation by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency for suspected extremism. Indeed, a German court found in May 2024 that there is sufficient evidence to designate AfD as a potentially extremist party that poses a threat to democracy and the dignity of certain groups and should therefore be kept under surveillance.

Musk has rejected the claim that AfD is a right-wing extremist party, with the ridiculous argument that it can’t be so since its leader has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka. The fact that AfD is engulfed in racist anti-immigrant hysteria and has vowed to restrict LGBTQ+ rights are no reasons for him to think that it is an extremist right-wing party. Weidel, in turn, used the opportunity afforded to her by Musk to argue that AfD shouldn’t be seen as a neo-Nazi party because it holds libertarian views on the economy (which is music to Musk’s ears as he is all for deregulation and lower taxes for corporations and the rich) and Hitler was a communist. Naturally, Musk agreed with Weidel in the outright lie that Hitler was indeed a communist. And also, with her equally ludicrous and utterly disgusting comment that left groups that support the Palestinian cause are Nazis and antisemites.

In an age of lies and misinformation, the notion that Hitler was a communist stands out as the high point of ideological perversion. Hitler hated communism and socialism and worked toward the annihilation of the communist movement not only in Germany but across Europe. Upon banning all existing political parties and making the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) the only political party in Germany, Hitler had thousands of communists and social democrats arrested and imprisoned. The Dachau concentration camp was constructed initially to hold the Nazis’ chief political enemies—the communists.

With Musk having become the first individual on X to have over 200 million followers, it is not difficult to imagine younger generations start believing that Hitler was a communist. Or in any other lies that Musk spreads, such as that the European Union (EU) tried to stop him from having a conversation with Alice Weidel.

In an age of lies and misinformation, the notion that Hitler was a communist stands out as the high point of ideological perversion.

Yet, it is Musk himself who is an enemy of free speech. He casts himself as a champion of free speech but has used his platform to target perceived enemies and to ban free speech. He has even sought to silence his critics with bogus lawsuits. Indeed, as the Guardian aptly put it, “Elon Musk has become the world’s biggest hypocrite on free speech.”

Thanks to Musk’s interference in German politics, there has been an enormous increase on Weidel’s average X posts in the last two weeks, which seems to suggest that Musk’s contributions could translate into more votes for AfD. Far-right parties are making significant strides across Europe. In 2024, the political pendulum in Europe swung even further right as far right parties made huge strides in France, Portugal, Belgium, and Austria while seven EU member states—Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia—already have hard-right parties in government.

As far as AfD is concerned, it won a German state election in 2024, making it the first far-right party to do so since 1945. However, Musk would like to see Germany’s far-right party victorious in the snap election set for Feb. 23 after the collapse of chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government.

There can be no denying that Musk “is throwing grenades into Europe’s political mainstream.” The continent needs radical change. The EU has failed on many fronts because of the rule-by-bureaucrats in Brussels. It lacks a unifying vision and the promises of a “social Europe” has given way to neoliberal policies that have been at the core of the creeping ascent of far-right movements and parties in the European political landscape. The surge of the far right and extreme nationalism on the continent have echoes of the 1930s. But Elon Musk is on the wrong side of history. His plan is to see Europe’s descent into a deep political crisis so the reactionary forces can eventually take over—just like they did in the 1930s. The question is: Can he be stopped before it’s too late?