In The Dawn of Everything, David Graeber and David Wengrow note that the Western notion of freedom derives from the Roman legal tradition, in which freedom was conceived as “the power of the male household head in ancient Rome, who could do whatever he liked with his chattels and possessions, including his children and slaves.”

Because of this, “freedom was always defined—at least potentially—as something exercised to the cost of others.”

You have to understand this notion of freedom—that to be free, you have to make someone else less free—to make sense of the idea that Donald Trump is a champion of “free speech.”

Trump is still seen by many as a defender of free speech, because he sticks up for the free speech of people whose speech is supposed to matter.

This is, unfortunately, not a fringe idea. Last week, The New York Times (2/25/25) ran a long interview Ezra Klein did with Trump-supporting intellectual (and former CIA officer) Martin Gurri, who said his main reason for voting for Trump was that “I felt like he was for free speech.”

“Free speech is a right-wing cause,” Gurri claimed.

Trump is the “free speech” champion who said of a protester at one of his rallies during the 2016 campaign (Washington Post, 2/23/16): “I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that…? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”

Trump sues news outlets when he doesn’t like how they edit interviews, or their polling results (New York Times, 2/7/25). Before the election, future Trump FBI Director Kash Patel (FAIR.org, 11/14/24) promised to “come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections…. Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.” Trump’s FCC chair is considering yanking broadcast licenses from networks for “news distortion,” or for letting former Vice President Kamala Harris have a cameo on Saturday Night Live (FAIR.org, 2/26/25).

Nonetheless, Trump is still seen by many as a defender of free speech, because he sticks up for the free speech of people whose speech is supposed to matter—like right-wingers who weren’t allowed to post content that was deemed hate speech, disinformation, or incitement to violence on social media platforms. As the headline of a FAIR.org piece (11/4/22) by Ari Paul put it, “The Right Thinks Publishers Have No Right Not to Publish the Right.” Another key “free speech” issue for the right, and much of the center: people who have been “canceled” by being criticized too harshly on Twitter (FAIR.org, 8/1/20, 10/23/20).

‘Agitators will be imprisoned’

Now Trump (Truth Social, 3/4/25) has come out with a diktat threatening sanctions against any educational institution that tolerates forbidden demonstrations:

All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS!

The reference to banning masks is a reminder that, for the right, freedom is a commodity that belongs to some people and not to others. You have an inalienable right to defy mask mandates, not despite but mainly because you could potentially harm someone by spreading a contagious disease—just as you supposedly have a right to carry an AR-15 rifle. Whereas if you want to wear a mask to protect yourself from a deadly illness—or from police surveillance—sorry, there’s no right to do that.

But more critically, what’s an “illegal protest”? The context, of course, is the wave of campus protests against the genocidal violence unleashed by Israel against Palestinians following the October 7, 2023, attacks (though Trump’s repressive approach to protests certainly is not limited to pro-Palestinian ones).

No one is talking about cracking down on students who proclaim “I Stand With Israel,” on the grounds that they may intimidate Palestinian students—even though they are endorsing an actual, ongoing genocide.

On January 30, Trump promised to deport all international students who “joined in the pro-jihadist protests,” and to “cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.” He ordered the Justice Department to “quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.”

A federal task force convened by Trump (CNN, 3/3/25) is threatening to pull $50 million in government contracts from New York’s Columbia University because of its (imaginary) “ongoing inaction in the face of relentless harassment of Jewish students,” which has been facilitated, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy, by “the censorship and false narratives of woke cancel culture.”

So the expression of ideas—Palestinian solidarity, U.S. criticism, generic “radicalism”—has to be suppressed, because they lead to, if they do not themselves constitute, “harassment of Jewish students” (by which is meant pro-Israel students; Jewish student supporters of Palestinian rights are frequently targets of this suppression). Those ideas constitute “censorship,” and the way to combat this censorship is to ban those ideas.

No one is talking about cracking down on students who proclaim “I Stand With Israel,” on the grounds that they may intimidate Palestinian students—even though they are endorsing an actual, ongoing genocide (FAIR.org, 12/12/24). That’s because—in the longstanding Western tradition that Trump epitomizes—free speech is the possession of some, meant to be used against others.

Live at 10 am Eastern/9 am Central time, and Streaming 24-7 Thereafter:

“The TMI Show,” hosted by Ted Rall and Manila Chan, with guest Jamarl Thomas, delivers a sharp, unfiltered breakdown of President Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025. Airing live weekdays at 10 AM ET on YouTube and Rumble, this episode dissects Trump’s agenda—touted as a “historic transformation”—focusing on his push for mass deportations, military cuts, and DOGE-led reforms. Rall, a leftist cartoonist, and Chan, a politically homeless journalist, alongside Thomas, a seasoned commentator, explore the speech’s bold promises and chaotic undertones. They highlight Democrats’ mixed reactions—outrage from figures like Chuck Schumer over federal job losses, yet tepid resistance in Congress—questioning if this signals a faltering opposition. Will Trump’s momentum hold, or will Democrats muster a counterstrike? Too much info, never enough answers.

The post TMI Show Ep 91: “Trump’s Congressional Comeback: Breaking Down the Speech” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The destruction of jobs, both public and private, creates billionaires. But most working people don’t know that, and the Democratic Party is afraid to say it.

Why? Because billionaires who have killed jobs of all kinds, dominate both political parties with their ill-gotten gains. Money buys silence.

The power of billionaires is rising as their numbers increase. In 1990, there were 66 billionaires in the United States. In 2023 there were 748. And in the U.S. alone, billionaire wealth in 2024 increased by $l.4 trillion, that’s $3.9 billion a day.

How did that happen?

It’s hard to wrap your mind around how much a billion dollars is. If you earned $1,000 per hour, it would take you 68.5 years to reach $1 billion, and at that point you’d have as much money as one thousand millionaires. That’s a lot of money, more than we can imagine, certainly more than any human being needs, ever.

To become a billionaire, you have to be willing to kill jobs with reckless abandon. It is one of the most effective ways to extract money from working people.

But they earned it, right? Isn’t earning billions of dollars a just reward for unparalleled entrepreneurial success? And isn’t criticizing that success sour grapes, the same as criticizing what makes our country so prosperous, free, and strong?

Maybe, until you look under the hood.

To become a billionaire, you have to be willing to kill jobs with reckless abandon. It is one of the most effective ways to extract money from working people.

The carnage started with the deregulation of Wall Street in the late 1970s, widened during the Reagan years, and was then adopted as the mantra of the Clinton administration during the 1990s.

The deregulation of Wall Street allowed companies to buy each other up with few constraints, often using borrowed money and putting the debt on the books of the acquired company. Layoffs are then used to pay off that debt.

Deregulation also led to the legalization of stock buybacks, which allowed companies to repurchase huge amounts of their own shares and drive the share price up. Wall Street investors and CEOs, who were increasingly paid with stock incentives, became fabulously rich as the price of their shares rose, though their company was no more profitable. Layoffs are then used to finance those buybacks.

Before deregulation, corporate leaders were ashamed if they had to lay off workers. They saw that as a sign of their own failure as managers. CEOs then thought themselves to be in the service of their employees, their communities, and their shareholders.

But free-market ideologues in the 1970s waged a successful campaign to favor shareholder supremacy above all—jobs, workers and communities be damned! (Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers, for the details)

Wall Street-driven job destruction happens in a flash. All it takes is a stock buyback, a merger, or a private equity purchase, and jobs will be cut overnight to pay for the deals.

That new cutthroat Wall Street mindset has led to approximately 18 million involuntary layoffs per year, year after year, since the 1990s.

But wait, you probably thought most job loss was caused by new technologies, like those that caused the disappearance of elevator operators and horse and buggy drivers?

Nope. Technological change, even AI, changes overall job composition slowly, over many years, even decades. Newness is expensive, so changes are adopted incrementally as costs come down.

But Wall Street-driven job destruction happens in a flash. All it takes is a stock buyback, a merger, or a private equity purchase, and jobs will be cut overnight to pay for the deals.

Public Employees Are Now Sitting Ducks

When labor unions represented more than 30 percent of private sector workers, from WWII to the 1960s, their wages and benefits improved year by year. So did the standard of living of public sector workers.

In New Jersey, for example, 40 years ago there were 60,000 high-paid auto workers with good pension plans. Public sector workers used them as a yardstick to increase their own compensation, as well. But today, those autoworker jobs are gone, which has put downward pressure on the wages and benefits of public sector workers.

Overall, in 1980, more than 50 percent of all private sector workers had pensions. Today, it’s only 11 percent. Meanwhile, 75 percent of state and local government employees, and nearly all federal workers, continue to have access to such plans. That’s why they are sitting ducks.

Divisive politicians can fire away by saying, “Why should private sector workers like you pay taxes to support public sector worker’s benefits that you don’t even have!”

There’s no way around it. The mass slaughter of jobs, whether public or private, grows billionaires.

That’s one reason why Trump and Musk have been getting away with trashing federal employees, with very little blowback from working people in the private sector, at least so far.

But there’s more.

Musk and his fellow billionaires need to cut federal government jobs so they can continue to stuff themselves at the federal trough. They want job cuts to pay for the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that go to the largest US corporations via tax breaks, subsidies, and fat federal contracts. Last year alone, Fortune reports that Musk received $6.3 billion in federal and local taxpayer funding, and during the past four years the total was nearly $25 billion.

Privatization of public sector jobs also is a bonanza for wealthy investors. Just imagine the billions to be made by turning over the postal service to the private sector.

There’s no way around it. The mass slaughter of jobs, whether public or private, grows billionaires.

“Save Our Jobs from Billionaire Greed.”

Imagine if federal worker unions and Democratic Party officials showed up at the plant gate of a company that was about to close its doors to finance hefty stock buybacks for its billionaire owners. A show of support for their fellow layoff victims and a unity message aimed at stopping billionaire job destruction would be simple to craft and easy to share. It would be news.

Why aren’t the Democrats doing this?

Because they don’t want to upset their billionaire donors by interfering with Wall Street’s pillage of working people. As Ken Martin, the new chair of the Democratic Party put it recently, “There are a lot of good billionaires out there that have been with the Democrats, who share our values, and we will take their money…”

If the Democrats dared to look under the hood, they would find that every one of those “good billionaires” is making money from job cuts that boost the value of her or his portfolio.

I was born and raised as a working-class Democrat, but I know that the slaughter of public and private sector jobs won’t stop until there’s a new party that truly represents the interests of working people.

Only then can we fight back against the billionaires and their two-party poodles so willing to curl up in their laps.

Over the weekend, Politico reported that, in early February, a group of Democratic “consultants, campaign staffers, elected officials, and party leaders” had convened in Virginia to chart a course forward for the party. The so-called “Comeback Retreat” was organized by the corporate centrist think tank Third Way and resulted in a summary document highlighting some of the top takeaways from the convening. In a series of bullet points, the authors of the document summarize the ways that, in their view, Democrats can reconnect with working class voters.

The Democratic Party is still reeling from its loss to President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement in November, and party leaders are correct in thinking they should adopt a new tack. However, Third Way, and its brand of tried-and-failed Republican-lite politics, should not have any say in the way the Democratic Party reforms itself as it heads into the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential election.

The Comeback Retreat summary focuses on Democrats’ cultural disconnect with working class voters, as well as Democrats’ lack of “economic trust” with voters. The document first points to issues in each category and then offers solutions for rebuilding across both lines. Some of these issues and prescriptions are of the milquetoast variety typically generated by the consultant class. Democrats should “acknowledge [voters’] struggles and speak to real concerns,” advises one point, while elsewhere the document recommends “[improving] Democratic communication and media strategy.” No political strategist would disagree that these are both good practices for any successful campaign.

If Democrats really want to speak to voters’ concerns, they should start by addressing trends that are making life unlivable for so many Americans.

However, situated alongside these poli-sci bromides are some truly reactionary ideas. In the cultural dimension, the document encourages Democrats to “embrace masculinity” and celebrate “traditional American imagery (e.g., farms, main streets).” Apparently, Third Way and its colleagues don’t consider city dwellers to be traditionally American. On the economic side, the document encourages Democrats to stop “demonizing wealth and corporations” and to “avoid an anti-capitalist stance.” The party also, per Third Way, needs to “move away from the dominance of small-dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate.”

If the party “moves away” from small-dollar donors, that apparently means “moving toward” millionaire, billionaire, and corporate donors.

Finally, the document devotes a fair amount of time to “reduc[ing] far-left influence and infrastructure.” Recommendations include building a pipeline of moderate Democrats to staff the ranks of the party and run for office, banning “far-left” candidate questionnaires, and “push[ing] back” against far-left staffers and groups who, according to Third Way, exert “disproportionate influence” in the party. (I’m pleased, as a member of the so-called “far-left,” to learn that we wield so much power within the party—and expect that our influence on party policy will become visible any day now.)

Taken together, a very clear image emerges of the Democratic Party envisioned by Third Way: It is pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, and preferential to big donors over small ones. It also celebrates masculinity and a traditional America while rejecting “identity-based” concerns. To put it another way, it sounds a lot like the modern GOP right before the MAGA movement took over.

This list of prescriptions—cooked up at a retreat held in the richest county in the U.S., where I seriously doubt there were working class voters present—is a recipe for disaster for the Democratic Party. In 2024, former Vice President Kamala Harris ran a campaign that was heavily focused on Republicans disaffected with Trump and aimed at presenting the Democrats as a kinder, gentler GOP, the kind that we might have today if Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney had become the standard-bearer instead of Donald Trump. This strategy backfired catastrophically. Doubling down on it would be pure political malpractice.

The Democratic Party does need to emphasize “shared values,” as the document says. These values, though, include the notion that healthcare is a human right that should be provided by the government, not a privilege. They embrace the idea that the U.S. needs to develop more clean energy sources, not drill for more oil and gas—with renewable energy creating more jobs than drilling. And Americans agree that corporations and the wealthy should be taxed more, not celebrated for their ingenuity in hoarding wealth.

If Democrats really want to speak to voters’ concerns, they should start by addressing trends that are making life unlivable for so many Americans. The affordability crunch caused by corporate greed, the climate crisis, our ever-more-expensive healthcare system, and our flailing democracy all provide the party with openings to take bold, progressive policy stands. However, these stances are completely incompatible with the regressive, triangulating politics that Third Way envisions.

The Democratic Party is very much at a crossroads: It can embrace progressivism and forge a new, compelling identity that speaks directly to voters’ concerns—especially working-class voters. Or it can take cues from the donor and consultant class and embrace the very policies that precipitated our current political crisis. The former approach requires bravery and risk-taking; the latter only asks that the party backslides into its old habits and, quite possibly, political obsolescence.

Just weeks after the Trump administration began sending immigration detainees to Guantánamo, the detainees report windowless solitary confinement for up to 23-hours-a-day; denial of drinking water as a form of punishment or retaliation; verbal and psychological abuse, including guards "threatening to shoot detainees"; and "never [being] permitted to contact family members."

These allegations are from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on March 1 to prevent new transfers to the offshore prison. The mistreatment is not surprising.

In 1991, U.S. military personnel dressed in riot gear and carrying "rifles with fixed bayonets" attacked Haitian asylum-seekers at Guantánamo—while the Haitians were sleeping.

ICE detention has long aspired to the lawlessness which Guantánamo makes possible.

That's according to an official military history of the detention of thousands of Haitians at the U.S. Naval Station in Cuba. Some of the Haitians had protested delays in their cases, as well as their mistreatment in U.S. custody, after fleeing U.S.-sponsored political violence in their country.

"The stunned migrants offered no resistance," writes the Marine Corps historian in his account of this "humanitarian mission."

In 1993, an American soldier at Guantánamo was angered when a Haitian child urinated in the dirt. The soldier "took the little boy's hand and rubbed it in the urine and mud, and then wiped it in his face and in his mouth," according to a fellow service member who later spoke to documentary filmmakers about his refusal to violently suppress nonviolent protests (see Crowing Rooster Arts, Guantánamo Notes, at 21:29).

In 1995, Haitian children unaccompanied by adults reported being "cracked" by U.S. military guards at Guantánamo: "their hands cuffed behind their back, their feet cuffed and then stepped on... The cuffings often occur[ed] in conjunction with other punishments, such as... being forced to kneel for hours on hot cement or beds of ants," according to the newspaper Haïti Progres.

After a 15-year-old Haitian girl threw food on another girl's bed, American soldiers handcuffed her to a cot in solitary confinement for a day-and-a-half, the girl told a visiting attorney. (You can read more about those imprisoned Haitian children in this pamphlet, published as part of "Ghosts of Guantánamo," a 1995 exhibit in Miami Beach organized to bring attention to those children in a time before social media.)

A brigadier general who acknowledged these incidents said they were not "abuse" but merely the result of "poor judgment and improper disciplinary techniques." A press release from the U.S. Atlantic Command said that the "conduct" of the military was being "closely monitored" by the U.S. immigration service.

Today, as the U.S. military collaborates with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Guantánamo, "degrading conditions and extreme isolation have led to several suicide attempts," according to the ACLU.

Remember that these "administrative detainees" are being held for alleged civil violations, and their past crimes are either exaggerated or non-existent.

The conflation of "immigrant" and "criminal" by anti-immigrant movements preceded the Trump administration by decades, of course, but the Trump-Vance campaign took mere lies to a new level, claiming outright that even legal immigrants are "illegal." On January 28, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt picked up the line, saying that all undocumented immigrants are criminals. (That's not true, either.) Then Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth parroted the slogan that the immigration detainees sent to Guantánamo are the "worst of the worst." The phrase was popularized by former Vice President Dick Cheney in his justification for sending post-September-11 prisoners to the U.S. base in Cuba, and it was misinformation then, too.

So what is the real point of Guantánamo detentions?

In the 2004 Supreme Court arguments in Rasul v. Bush, concerning the post-9/11 detainees, attorney John Gibbons called the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo a "lawless enclave." That lawlessness had already been tested on the immigration prisoners. It's now more widely understood that the point of imprisoning Haitians—and others, including Cubans and Chinese—in offshore camps on foreign territory controlled by the U.S. was to keep them isolated from the U.S. justice system. Attorney Gibbons was referring to this lack of access to courts and due process.

ICE detention has long aspired to the lawlessness which Guantánamo makes possible. That's part of what the oft-quoted "taking the shackles off" of ICE really means, and it's why the Trump administration has ordered legal organizations to stop helping detained noncitizens within the U.S. even to understand the laws they're accused of breaking, much less to know their own rights under the law. (That order has been blocked by a federal judge for now.)

It's also worth remembering, with all the propaganda about borders and invasion, that the executive's backwards rationale for its claim to unlimited detention authority in Cuba has been that the U.S. is holding the prisoners outside U.S. borders. But Escalona v. Noem, the ACLU lawsuit, argues that the very transfer of immigration detainees from the U.S. to Cuba is illegal under U.S. immigration law. (The 1990s immigration detainees at Guantánamo had been picked up at sea, not transferred from the mainland U.S.)

At Guantánamo, as in ICE detention centers here, the lawlessness of procedure and the brutality of daily mistreatment are part of the same fabric. Isolating the detained persons—from lawyers, family, and the media—is crucial to that project. Trying to break the prisoners' isolation is therefore paramount.

The economy is like the ocean—both rely on a healthy foundation to thrive. Just as the ocean's ecosystems depend on clean waters and balance at its depths, the economy needs a strong, stable base—workers, industries, and resources that function properly at the ground level. If the ocean floor becomes polluted, it disrupts the entire ecosystem, causing the waters above to suffer. Likewise, when the foundations of the economy are neglected—through inequality, corruption, or unsustainable practices—the effects ripple upward, leading to broader instability, high unemployment, and deepening inequality, making it increasingly difficult for ordinary people to stay afloat.

A clear example of this is when mass layoffs of government workers occur. Governments play a key role in maintaining infrastructure, social services, and public sector employment, which support the economy at large. When governments reduce their workforce through austerity measures or budget cuts, the immediate consequences affect the foundational services people rely on—healthcare, education, public safety, and more. These cuts often lead to decreased economic activity in local communities, as government workers are consumers themselves, spending on goods and services. Moreover, when government employees lose their jobs, the ripple effects can harm the private sector, as unemployment rises and consumer demand falls, further destabilizing local economies. The loss of these vital workers often undermines the very systems that hold society together, from the safety nets that protect the vulnerable to the systems of governance that enable economic stability.

Much like a polluted ocean, neglecting the "depths" of the economy—whether through environmental degradation, mass reductions in vital services, or economic policies that favor the wealthy over everyday people—ultimately pollutes the economic waters above. By weakening the economy's foundations, mass layoffs and economic instability erode confidence in the system, resulting in diminished growth, further instability, and a more fractured society. Both ecosystems—natural and economic—are delicate, requiring careful, long-term stewardship to avoid collapse and ensure prosperity for future generations.

Just as we fight for environmental protections to sustain our planet, we must fight for policies that sustain economic stability and fairness.

I understand this reality firsthand. As someone who experienced homelessness while raising a child, I've seen what happens when economic policies fail the most vulnerable. Losing stable housing wasn't just a personal hardship—it was a direct consequence of a system that prioritizes short-term profits over long-term stability. The economic ocean had already been polluted, and I was caught in the current, struggling to survive in a world that often overlooks those in need. I faced the consequences of an economy that fails to support its most essential workers, the ones who are too often invisible in the greater economic landscape.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, I witnessed another failure of economic stewardship. Many homeless individuals had no information about the virus, no access to protective measures, and no healthcare support. My daughter and I took it upon ourselves to educate and distribute resources to those left behind. Later, while filming my docuseries In Correspondence With Eric Protein Moseley, a spin-off of Homeless Coronavirus Outreach, I contracted Covid-19 myself. I was fortunate to receive care from St. Jude Center—Park Central and Catholic Charities Dallas, but my experience further solidified the urgency of healthcare and economic policies that serve everyone—not just the privileged. It became clear to me that a system that neglects its most vulnerable citizens will ultimately collapse under the weight of its own inequities. The pandemic illuminated the deep cracks in our social systems, with those at the bottom facing the greatest hardships and suffering the most severe consequences.

The current economic landscape shows us that public resources must be protected, not gutted. Economic justice and environmental justice go hand in hand. If we continue to strip away vital support systems—whether through mass layoffs, corporate greed, or government neglect—we are poisoning the waters we all rely on. Those at the bottom will feel the effects first, but soon enough, the instability will reach every level of society, affecting businesses, communities, and entire nations. This instability doesn't just threaten the most vulnerable, but the entire fabric of society itself. When the foundations weaken, it's only a matter of time before the entire structure is compromised.

We cannot afford to let the ocean of our economy become toxic. Just as we fight for environmental protections to sustain our planet, we must fight for policies that sustain economic stability and fairness. We need long-term solutions, not short-term cuts that deepen inequality and erode trust in the system. If we fail to act now, the waves of economic instability will continue to crash down, leaving millions struggling to stay afloat and threatening the future prosperity of us all. Our failure to protect the foundations of the economy will not only harm those already at the bottom—it will have consequences for all of us, as the ripple effects of neglect reach every part of society. The time to act is now—before the waters of economic injustice drown us all.

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine appears to have become nearly the latest of a long line of American allies, many of them autocrats like himself, who were told the U.S. would always look out for them only to be kicked to the curb after they were no longer useful to the United States.

The post Support Group for Jilted U.S. Allies appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

U.S. President Donald Trump is killing the economy, reducing the U.S. government to rubble, and destroying our relationships with our allies. Russian President Vladimir Putin may love it, but it’s a catastrophe for us and much of the rest of the world.

Many of you ask me: Where’s the Democratic Party?

I wish I had a good answer. At a time when America needs a strong, bold, courageous opposition, the Democrats’ silence is deafening.

What the hell does it mean to be a “moderate” today anyway? When the choice we’re facing is between democracy and dictatorship, where’s the midpoint?

My old friend James Carville advises Democrats to “roll over and play dead.” With due respect to James, he’s full of sh*t.

Democrats have been rolling over and playing dead too long. That’s one reason the nation is in the trouble we’re in.

If Democrats had had the guts years ago to condemn big money in politics, fight corporate welfare, and unrig a market that’s been rigged in favor of big corporations and the rich, Trump’s absurd bogeymen (the deep state, immigrants, socialists, trans people, diversity-equity-inclusion) wouldn’t have stood a chance.

My simple advice to congressional Democrats: Wake the hell up!

Tonight, Trump will address both chambers of Congress. He has taken over the brains and intestines of Republican lawmakers, who will applaud his stream of lies.

Democrats will do—what? Sit on their hands? Applaud a few insipid things?

Ideally, Democrats should boycott the whole event. Even sitting in the well of the House as if this were just another president addressing just another Congress legitimizes Trump’s coup.

Democrats should not signal to a nationally televised audience that what we’re living through is normal.

If Democratic lawmakers feel they must be there, then make good and loud trouble. Disrupt Trump’s speech. Arrive in Revolutionary War costumes and hold signs proclaiming America is not a monarchy. Wave American flags and copies of the Constitution.

Every time he utters the word “tariff,” hold up a sign that says “It’s a tax.”

When Trump lies—about Ukraine, about DOGE, about immigration, about the tariffs he’s just put into effect, about his plan for robbing working people to give another huge tax cut to the rich—boo loudly. Hold up a “lie meter” for the cameras.

Then walk out en masse.

Show America there’s still life in the democratic opposition, even as America slides toward dictatorship.

The good news is most of America is firmly against Trump (and with Democrats) on the big things. According to polls:

1. Most don’t want a Trump Republican budget that cuts almost $1 trillion out of Medicaid, food stamps, and child nutrition in order to make way for a $4.5 trillion tax cut mostly for the wealthy.
2. Most don’t want the richest person in the world destroying departments and agencies that protect our health, safety, financial security, and environment.
3. Most don’t side with Putin. Most don’t want us to abandon Ukraine. Most don’t want us to turn against our traditional allies that are democracies in favor of a bloodthirsty dictator.
4. Most don’t want tariffs that drive up the prices they pay for food, gas, housing, and clothing. Most understand that tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers.
5. Most don’t want a government of, by, and for billionaires.
6. Most believe in democracy and the rule of law and don’t want Trump trampling on the Constitution, acts of Congress, and federal court orders.

Not only should Democrats be making noise (and hay) about all this, but Democrats should not rely on so-called “moderates” (such as Michigan’s Sen. Elissa Slotkin) to speak for them. Democrats selected Slotkin to deliver the Democrats’ “response” to Trump’s address tonight.

Democrats need Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), or anyone else with fight in their hearts and rage in their bellies who can make the case that Trump is bad for working people and terrible for America and the world.

What the hell does it mean to be a “moderate” today anyway? When the choice we’re facing is between democracy and dictatorship, where’s the midpoint?

We are in clear and present danger. Democrats must stand up for American ideals at a time when Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Elon Musk are riding roughshod over them.

The rest of you, my friends, should make a ruckus, too. Call your Democratic senators and Democratic representatives (if you have any) today, and tell them what I’ve just told you. Again, the Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121.

During or after Trump’s speech tonight, call the White House and tell the operator that you disagree with what Trump has said. White House operators keep track of positive and negative responses. (The White House switchboard is 202-456-1414.)

Have no doubt that we are the true patriots of this nation. We are the voices of democracy, freedom, social justice, and the rule of law. We are the people.

Our lawmakers—including Trump and Vance (and even de facto lawmakers like Musk)—are supposed to be working for us.

The waiting is almost over, Donald Trump is about to hit America’s workers with the largest tax increase they have ever seen. Trump’s taxes on imports (tariffs) from Canada, Mexico, and China will cost people in the United States somewhere around $260 billion a year or around $2,000 a household.

This is far larger than any tax increase we’ve seen in the last half-century, and unlike tax increases put in place by Clinton and Obama, it will primarily hit low and middle-income households. Their tax increases primarily hit the top 1% percent, which is probably why they got so much more attention from the media.

It is not clear what our reality TV show president hopes to accomplish with these tax hikes. His stated reasons don’t make much sense. Canada, Mexico, and China are already cooperating with the U.S. on the issues he is complaining about. There is a minimal flow of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants from Canada.

If Trump can’t find major savings in the budget, then he will have to raise other taxes if he doesn’t want to hugely increase the deficit with his tax cuts for the Elon Musk crowd. This is the most obvious explanation for Trump hitting us with his huge import taxes.

Mexico sharply curtailed the flow of undocumented immigrants following a deal with Biden last summer. We can look to reduce the flow further, but that could probably be accomplished by negotiations rather than imposing a big tax on U.S. households.

China has also cooperated in reducing the flow of precursor substances for making fentanyl. Here also there were probably better prospects for further reductions through a path of negotiations rather than Donald Trump’s big tax increases.

Also, unlike Canada and Mexico, China’s economy is not that dependent on its trade with the U.S. China’s exports to the U.S. come to less than 2.5 percent of its GDP. If Donald Trump’s taxes reduce that by half, it could look to export to other countries (like Canada or Mexico) or increase domestic demand.

It seems implausible that Donald Trump’s stated reasons for his tax increase are his actual reasons. In principle, taxes on imports can be used as part of an industrial strategy to build up key industries, as was explicitly the case under Biden. His tariffs were intended to promote the advanced semi-conductor industry, as well as solar and wind energy and electric cars.

However, it would be difficult to find any evidence of an industrial strategy in Trump’s plans. He actually is deliberately sabotaging the industries Biden sought to foster.

There is an old saying in Washington that if you want to understand politicians, look at what they do, not what they say. On that front there is no ambiguity. Donald Trump is imposing big new taxes, and he is doing it in a way that does not require congressional approval.

He has made no secret of his intention to cut taxes on the wealthy. While Elon Musk and DOGE boys have put on a good show with the chain saw and breaking into various government agencies, the savings they can actually identify don’t amount to much.

If Trump can’t find major savings in the budget, then he will have to raise other taxes if he doesn’t want to hugely increase the deficit with his tax cuts for the Elon Musk crowd. This is the most obvious explanation for Trump hitting us with his huge import taxes. It sounds much better to pretend he’s cracking down on fentanyl and illegal immigration than to say he’s whacking ordinary workers with a big tax increase. But that is what Donald Trump is doing.

Correction/Update: This post has been updated from its original to better reflect estimates based on what the Trump administration clarified exactly what tariffs would be put into place.

Live at 10 am Eastern/9 am Central time, and Streaming 24-7 Thereafter:

In this episode of “The TMI Show,” hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan tackle the Trump administration’s audacious decision to halt weapons shipments to Ukraine until Kyiv signals readiness for peace with Russia. The duo dissects Trump’s heated Oval Office showdown with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, debating if this pause is a diplomatic masterstroke or a concession to Moscow. They explore the global ripple effects, from Kremlin approval to European frustration. Breaking news from the past 24 hours fuels the conversation: Russia welcomes the move as a peace gesture, Ukraine grapples with the aid cutoff, and European allies rush to fill the gap. Ted and Manila deliver raw, unscripted takes on this game-changing development, blending sharp analysis with their signature wit. Don’t miss this deep dive into the evolving Russia-Ukraine saga.

The post TMI Show Ep 90: “Trump’s Ukraine Weapons Pause: Peace Push or Power Play? first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 90: “Trump’s Ukraine Weapons Pause: Peace Push or Power Play? appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

“This is going to be great television.”

But it wasn’t great. It was tragic. U.S. President Donald Trump’s comment at the conclusion of his unprecedented public outburst directed toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy marked a milestone in a momentous week: Trump’s “America First” agenda became “America Alone… with Russia.”

Trump and Vice President JD Vance shouted at Zelenskyy—a beleaguered wartime leader struggling to defend his democratic nation against Russia’s invasion. They scolded him for not thanking Trump, who slowed to a trickle the flow of American weapons to Ukraine.

In rejecting Trump’s request, Zelenskyy joined Trump’s list of “enemies.” To get even, Trump is now helping Russia negotiate what it could not achieve after three years on the battlefield: the conquest of Ukraine.

Russian leaders could not hide their glee. On social media, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev posted: “The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office. And @realDonaldTrump is right: The Kiev regime is ‘gambling with WWIII.’”

Democracies throughout the world rallied around Zelenskyy.

A Useful Idiot Throws a Tantrum

In the 1930s, Soviet President Joseph Stalin referred to Westerners who supported him as “useful idiots.” That description understates Trump’s value to Putin. Far beyond the praise that Trump lavishes on other dictators, Trump parrots Russian propaganda and ignores these facts:

• Russia invaded Ukraine, making it a victim of unlawful Russian aggression and alleged war crimes. But Trump claims falsely that Ukraine “started” the war.

• In 2019, Zelenskyy won a landslide victory with 73% of the vote in a free and fair democratic election. Russia’s 2022 invasion resulted in martial law, which made future Ukraine elections during wartime impossible. But Trump repeats another false Putin talking point that Zelenskyy is an illegitimate leader—a “dictator without elections.”

• Zelenskyy has an approval rating in Ukraine exceeding 50%. But contrary to the evidence, Trump says that it’s only 4%. He’s pushing Putin’s positions aimed at excluding Zelenskyy from settlement negotiations and destabilizing Ukraine: “I don’t think he’s very important to be at meetings,” Trump said in a February 21, 2025 Fox News interview. “He has no cards, and you get sick of it… And I’ve had it.”

Why has Trump turned against Zelenskyy and toward Putin? Observers say that it reflects Trump’s “transactional” approach. But that’s too benign. More likely explanations are that Trump is: 1) beholden to Putin, and 2) vindictive toward Zelenskyy.

Trump Owes Putin

Commentators have largely ignored the passages that are key to understanding Trump’s tirade.

“Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,” Trump told Zelenskyy.

“With me” is the key. In Trump’s mind, he and Putin together suffered through investigations into Russian election interference. As Trump explained, “He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. You ever hear of that deal? That was a phony… And he had to go through that. And he did go through it. We didn’t end up in a war. And he went through it. He was accused of all that stuff. He had nothing to do with it.”

By adopting Putin’s positions, Trump and Vance have destroyed any leverage that Ukraine, Europe, or the U.S. had in negotiating a resolution of the war.

The truth is that Putin had everything “to do with it” and “went through” nothing, except perhaps delight when his candidate won the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia wanted Trump to win and took steps to achieve that outcome. To this day, the factual findings remain unrebutted.

Russian intelligence officers hacked Democratic National Committee computer systems and spread disinformation on social media. Communications between the Trump campaign and Russians were numerous and frequent. And when members of the Russian parliament learned of Trump’s victory, they burst into applause.

But Trump is still pushing the lie that investigating Russian interference was a “witch hunt.”

For Trump, Everything is Personal

Another explanation for Trump’s explosion was six years in the making. Shortly after 9:00 am on July 25, 2019, Trump asked Zelenskyy for a “favor:” If Ukraine opened an investigation into Hunter Biden’s dealings in the country and thereby tarnished the likely Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, Trump would release previously appropriated U.S. military aid.

Zelenskyy refused. Eventually, Trump was impeached over what he falsely described as his “perfect call” with Zelenskyy. And Biden won the 2020 election.

In rejecting Trump’s request, Zelenskyy joined Trump’s list of “enemies.” To get even, Trump is now helping Russia negotiate what it could not achieve after three years on the battlefield: the conquest of Ukraine.

For Trump, retribution was a no-brainer. He could please Putin while getting even with Zelenskyy. A two-fer.

Carrying Putin Across the Finish Line

Trump has told Zelenskyy to end the war on Putin’s terms or else. He “better move fast or he’s not going to have any country left,” Trump warned.

Vance relished his role as Trump’s attack dog. He asserted that Trump’s diplomacy would end the war and berated Zelenskyy for not thanking Trump. Zelenskyy responded with Putin’s track record of breaking prior diplomatic agreements and asked, “What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you speaking about?”

“I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country,” Vance said smugly. But he was actually referring to the kind of diplomacy that emboldens Putin’s self-proclaimed effort to recreate the Russian empire through brute force.

By adopting Putin’s positions, Trump and Vance have destroyed any leverage that Ukraine, Europe, or the U.S. had in negotiating a resolution of the war. Specifically, those positions include:

• Ukraine cannot join NATO;
• Ukraine must cede permanently portions of Ukraine that Russia has captured;
• Economic sanctions that are crippling Russia’s economy should be removed; and
• America should side with Russia against democracy—as it did on February 24 when the U.S. voted against a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ninety-three nations—including America’s most loyal allies—voted in favor of the resolution.

The Danger of Useful Idiots in High Places

Like a child with arrested development, Trump doesn’t care about the larger consequences of his actions. He has no global strategy for retaining democracy’s friends or resisting its foes. His goals in Ukraine are to help Putin and to humiliate Zelenskyy. The fact that he will make the world a more dangerous place does not factor into his limited thinking.

When asked whether sacrificing Ukraine would undermine European security, the NATO alliance, and America’s national interests, Trump said that the “big, beautiful ocean” would protect us. That strategy might have worked in the 18th century; it’s an absurd approach to protecting America today.

Apologists for authoritarians are nothing new. But now Putin’s most useful idiot ever occupies the Oval Office. Fear and personal ambition have caused Republicans in the legislative branch to abandon their constitutional responsibility to check him.

Only six weeks after Trump’s inauguration, the results for America and the world are already catastrophic.

It will get worse.

In 2015, writer Adrian Bott famously tweeted: “‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.” This went viral, coining the phrase, “Leopards ate my face.” It’s so tempting to mock people who act against their own interests such as Trump voters.

Many people voted for Trump due to their perception of economic self-interest, as MAGA promised to restore America's economy and national pride after recent hardships. Additionally, Trump's charismatic leadership and the appeal of his nationalist and anti-woke rhetoric attracted widespread support among various segments of the population.

Wait, no. That’s my paraphrased analysis of how Adolph Hitler rose to power. I substituted Trump for Hitler, MAGA for Nazi Party, America for Germany, and woke for communist. I couldn’t resist. My bad. You can find the original source: How Did Adolf Hitler Happen? on the National WWII Museum website.

So how did Trump rise to power? In a November 13, 2024 article entitled What Trump supporters believe and expect, the Pew Research Center reported “[T]he economy was the most important issue for Trump voters this year. In a September survey, 93% said it was very important to their vote. Immigration ranked second, as 82% said it was very important to their vote.”

Many people voted for Trump due to his lies about immigration and the economy. He and his team effectively tricked people into believing that he would effectively address these issues. This, because his supporters see him as a decisive leader who would change America.

According to the same Pew Research article, among Trump voters: “92% believed that biological sex is not mutable. Just 7% said a person can be a man or woman even if that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. 89% said gun ownership does more to increase than decrease safety. 83% viewed the criminal justice system as not tough enough on criminals. 75% did not think the legacy of slavery affects the position of Black people in American society today much or at all.”

So not all that much different from Hitler’s rise to power. Trump’s voters are already learning to their dismay that Trump’s fascistic attacks on trans people, immigrants, women, and minorities won’t do anything to help anyone.

Trump’s frantic dismantling of government and mass firing of public servants—including veterans—harm these essential government employees immediately. This anarchic frenzy will hurt all of us eventually, including Trump voters. His regressive, reckless policies certainly won’t lower the price of eggs which are far more likely to infect people with food borne diseases now that Trump fired inspectors charged with keeping our food safe.

Any way forward against fascism must repudiate faux populism by championing inclusive economic policies—such as a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights based on FDR’s Second Bill of Rights.

Many Trump voters already realize that their lives are getting worse, not better, due to Trump’s assaults on education, science, health, and nearly every other essential government service. We may feel compelled to say, “We told you so!” to Trump voters and even to other people who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. That’s understandable, perhaps unavoidable, but I think it makes more sense to commiserate with them. After all, so many of them already lament Trump’s eating their faces off.

After we commiserate, we could listen to Trump voters and others, learn why they voted the way they did. We could urge them to vote for better candidates to cure the harms their vote caused. If that prospect disgusts you, then we could consider learning from interviews with Trump voters and public opinion polling instead.

We could engage with persuadable Trump voters and persuade them to vote for candidates courageous enough to stand up to oligarchs and corporatists. We could listen to and learn from those who rejected Kamala Harris. Trump voters, Jill Stein voters, and those who stayed home have valid views about the weaknesses of Democratic candidates and policies. After we listen to them, we could ask them to help us make the Democratic Party better.

Alan Minsky explained how and why this makes sense as a viable theory of change in his article, Our 2 Choices: Join the Democratic Party to Transform It, or Acquiesce to Fascism published by Common Dreams last month. Minsky wrote, “Because of the structure of American society and politics, the Democratic Party is the only institution positioned to challenge, defeat, and reverse the Trump administration’s ongoing destruction of our constitutional order.”

Of course this prescription involves a powerful mass movement working inside and outside of the Democratic Party. This, to effectuate an evolution in the Party to reject neoliberal economics in favor of an enlightened economics of inclusion. One that fits neatly beside, rather than works at cross purposes, with the Democratic Party’s commitment to social inclusion. Good economic policy has always been good politics.

Alan Minsky added a post script, “The one thing I think I should have added—and which I will add at the top of my next essay—is that the Democratic Party right now is flat on its back. Now is not the time for progressives to abandon the party.”

Make no mistake, Trump’s economic policies elevate special interests and oligarchs above the needs of every day Americans at least as much as any other neoliberal scams. Also, as mentioned, Trump’s style of identity politics is at least as cynical as any Democrat’s. Much worse, Trump’s demagoguery instigates death threats, stochastic terrorism, and violence. Most notably the January 6th attacks against the U.S. Capitol seeking to halt the peaceful transfer of power after Trump lost the 2020 election.

Yes, they voted for Trump. Yes, Trump is eating their faces. Yes, we may feel an almost irresistible urge to wipe what’s left of their noses in the rotten fruits of their folly. That won’t help beat back Trump’s fascism or help us win elections.

Asad Haider, author of Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump (Verso 2018), wrote a commentary published in Salon entitled Despite his loss, Bernie Sanders' campaign proved that organizing around class interests works. Haider explained, “First and foremost, liberals are constantly worried about people ‘voting against their interests.’ ... According to a certain liberal common sense, working class voters are continually supporting Republicans, against ‘interests’ which haven't yet been defined.”

I estimate that between a fourth and a third of voters actually believe that scapegoating and harming immigrants, minorities, women, disabled people—aka Trump’s anti-woke, anti-DEI attacks—are in their interests. Of course they’re wrong. Still, it may well be extremely time consuming and difficult to deprogram them and free them from their hatefulness.

That said, reaching out to such people with an economic message might help begin a constructive conversation, or it may not. Calling them “deplorable” etc. gains us little more than a feeling of moral superiority. Cold comfort for people subjected to Trump’s ruthless predation, including almost all of them and us sooner or later.

By my calculus, at least two thirds of voters remain open to listening to a progressive agenda. In fact, they’re eager to support candidates and policies that center the economic needs of the poor, the working class, and the increasingly insecure middle class. This, in a marked repudiation of Carter-Clinton-Obama-Biden neoliberal policies that favor greed and power of the economic elite over the vast majority of Americans.

Bernie Sanders proved outreach based on economic imperatives works. In an article entitled Bernie Sanders influenced US politics more than any other failed presidential candidate in the country's history published in 2020 by Business Insider, John Haltiwanger wrote:

His push for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and tuition-free college, among other policies aimed at eradicating inequality, has set the tone for the future of the party. This is evident via young leaders such as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who volunteered on Sanders' campaign in 2016 before going on to win a shocking victory in the 2018 midterms.

Haltiwanger added, “Sanders has also set a new standard in the way campaigns raise money, rejecting high-dollar fundraisers while building a massive grassroots movement via small-dollar donations.”

Failing to make a Bernie Sanders-style economic appeal to voters, candidates running as Democrats keep ceding the high ground on economic inclusiveness. Trump took advantage of this failure. Other faux populists will continue doing so as well.

By running on identity rather than kitchen table issues, neoliberal Democrats squander political advantages on economics, the most important issues for many if not most voters. Candidates may shy away from inclusive economics, hoping to secure generous campaign contributions from oligarchs and elites.

In any case, the dismal results of this utterly failed approach speak for themselves. No amount of slick television ads or performative inclusion can overcome the stench of duplicitous neoliberal policies. Voters reject these broken promises. Bad economic policy remains bad politics.

Diversity, inclusion, and equity remain essential. That understood, absent a clear parallel commitment to economic inclusion, candidates relying on to DEI may appear out of touch. Worse, tokenism and other hollowly symbolic identity politics alienates increasingly cynical voters. This, including poor, working class, and middle class voters of all ethnicities, across all demographics.

Decades of bipartisan neoliberal repudiation of New Deal economic policies set the stage for Trump’s faux populism. Generations of Democrats’ failure to offer a competing inclusive economic vision opened the door for Trump’s fascism. This dismal dynamic creates an opportunity for a people-centered policy advocates. As Trump eats their faces, his voters are more likely to support proven effective progressive solutions to our shared challenges.

So-called “centrist” Democrats may try to camouflage their rob from the poor to enrich the rich policies behind a cheap and increasingly cynical strategy focusing on identity politics. That tactic isn’t working. Not as politics, nor as policy.

This approach keeps failing so spectacularly that I find it hard to imagine it’s any kind of accident. I blame million dollar a month consultants whose allegiance lies with billionaire benefactors. Their advice consistently prevents Democratic political victories. They must know this. Their income depends on it.

We can and will continue making social progress, and we must struggle for a more perfect union, no matter the backlash, and no matter how long it takes.

Overpaid pundits would rather lose to fascists like Trump than win by backing progressives like Bernie Sanders, A.O.C., and the rest of The Squad. So should people abandon the Democratic Party? As mentioned, Alan Minsky addressed that dilemma in his Common Dreams article Our 2 Choices: Join the Democratic Party to Transform It, or Acquiesce to Fascism.

Bernie eschewed high priced consultants and relied on small donations. This lets Sanders and other progressive candidates shake off shackles of campaign contributions with strings attached, freeing them to advocate for policies that benefit everyone—not just the wealthiest elite. This is important.

Any way forward against fascism must repudiate faux populism by championing inclusive economic policies—such as a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights based on FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. Alan Minsky and Professor Harvey J. Kaye wrote about this in their February 2022 Common Dreams article entitled A Call for All Progressive Candidates and Officeholders to Embrace a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights.

Melding economic and social policies, Minsky and Kaye wrote, “We must guarantee all people residing in the United States the right to the essentials of a good life regardless of their income, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin.”

It’s true. People of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, disabled people, and other Trump targets disproportionately suffer from neoliberal economic neglect. Promising people equal access to college means nothing when we can’t afford to feed ourselves or our loved ones, heat our homes, or even pay the rent—much less pay for tuition, books, room, and board.

Sadly, trying to impose enlightenment on an unwilling majority usually backfires. Trump’s two electoral victories, along with appallingly sweeping victories by hate-mongers like Ron DeSantis prove these points.

We can and will continue making social progress, and we must struggle for a more perfect union, no matter the backlash, and no matter how long it takes. As Dr. King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

I hope those of us who warned against Project 2025 and the rest of the Trump wrought wreckage will extend an empathetic hand of welcome to all those who voted for Trump or failed to vote against him.

Progress toward economic and social justice makes winning culture wars more likely. By contrast, failure to address the economic needs of the majority makes social progress impossible. As the decades of New Deal coalition domination of U.S. politics proved, we can win elections and win over swing voters by addressing their economic needs. Bernie Sanders showed that the New Deal resonates as well today as it did from the 1930s all the way into the 1960s.

I hope those of us who warned against Project 2025 and the rest of the Trump wrought wreckage will extend an empathetic hand of welcome to all those who voted for Trump or failed to vote against him. This, in order to reclaim and remake the Democratic Party into a people’s party worth of the name. I hope this happens sooner rather than later.

Yes, they voted for Trump. Yes, Trump is eating their faces. Yes, we may feel an almost irresistible urge to wipe what’s left of their noses in the rotten fruits of their folly. That won’t help beat back Trump’s fascism or help us win elections. We’re better off offering the increasing numbers of repentant Trump voters a sweeping, common sense set of solutions to their economic woes. They’re our woes too.

An income tax rate of over 100% would be hard for anyone to sustain. At a rate a smidge over 100%, our deepest pockets might be able to get by if they drew down their wealth or borrowed against it. But keeping up, year in and year out, with an income tax rate of over 1,000%, 10 times income? That seems, on its face, totally implausible.

Yet the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation would have us believe Warren Buffett did just that for at least five years running, all while enormously growing his own personal wealth.

This conclusion about Buffett’s tax situation emerges inescapably out of the claims the Tax Foundation makes in a research paper published just after last year’s November election. The paper’s title—America’s Super Rich Pay Super Amounts of Taxes, New Treasury Report Finds—could hardly lay out the Tax Foundation’s case more starkly.

Shareholders don’t pay corporate income tax obligations. Corporations do, from their corporate income.

But did the U.S. Department of the Treasury report the Tax Foundation paper references actually make such a finding? No, not even close.

The Treasury report does analyze the total tax payments of rich and ultra-rich taxpayers relative to their wealth. The report’s writers, all highly respected economists, took into account every tax that impacts a person’s wealth, directly or indirectly. One example: A corporate shareholder bears no personal responsibility for the payment of a corporation’s income tax. But the Treasury report attributes a proportionate share of that corporate tax to shareholders since corporate taxes reduce the value of shareholders’ holdings and, consequently, their wealth.

The Tax Foundation took this Treasury analysis of total tax payments by wealthy taxpayers and proceeded to blindly compare those payments to these taxpayers’ adjusted gross incomes. That comparison enables the Tax Foundation to insist, among other claims, that the nation’s richest 0.0001% of taxpayers are paying 58% of their adjusted gross incomes in taxes.

I didn’t find this specious Tax Foundation logic particularly surprising, given that I’ve commented in the past on the specious logic that runs through other Tax Foundation studies. But this new Tax Foundation paper vividly exposes how accepting the foundation’s logic and applying that logic to real life produces results so absurd that they demand some in-depth illumination.

Which brings us back to Mr. Buffett. Thanks to reporting by the independent news outlet ProPublica and publicly available information on the income tax payments of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett’s corporate investment base, we have considerable data on Buffett’s adjusted personal gross income, his ownership interest in Berkshire Hathaway from 2014 through 2018, and the income tax payments Berkshire made in each of those years.

We don’t have full information about Buffett’s other tax obligations, but let’s assume those obligations amounted to zero, since any additional payments would only have driven Buffett’s effective tax rate, according to the Tax Foundation’s methodology, even higher.

Warren Buffett’s ownership interest in Berkshire Hathaway—as reported in SEC filings for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018—amounted to 20.5% that first year, 19.6% the next, and then 18.7%, 17.9%, and 17.2% the last three.

According to the data service macrotrends, Berkshire Hathaway’s income tax payments minus refunds for those years totaled $7.9 billion in 2014, $10.5 billion in 2015, and $9.2 billion in 2016 before sinking into refund territory in both 2017 and 2018, with $21.5 billion in refunds the first of those two years and $321 million the second.

Applying the Tax Foundation’s methodology would attribute to Buffett a share of Berkshire’s taxes paid—and refunds received—by multiplying his ownership stake in the corporation for each of the years by the corporate tax payment made or refund received for that year. Doing the math, Buffett ends up with a personal tax liability from Berkshire of over $1.5 billion.

That figure tops by more than 10 times Buffett’s adjusted personal gross income of $125 million for that same period, according to a ProPublica review of IRS records. The bottom line: All these numbers that we get applying the Tax Foundation’s methodology bring Buffett’s effective personal income tax rate to just over 1,200%.

And Buffett would end up having paid taxes at that rate, according to the Tax Foundation methodology, at a time when Berkshire’s income tax payments, net of refunds, were running relatively low. In 2017, the massive hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria had Berkshire’s insurance businesses incurring huge losses. Without those losses, and the tax refunds resulting from them, Buffett’s effective personal tax rate—according to the Tax Foundation methodology—would have topped over 4,000%!

Impossible? Of course. So what sleight of hand is the Tax Foundation playing here? Corporate income tax payments do reduce the wealth of their shareholders. Attributing a share of those tax payments to shareholders, as the original Treasury Department study does, makes eminent sense. But shareholders don’t pay corporate income tax obligations. Corporations do, from their corporate income. The Tax Foundation, for its part, doesn’t attribute corporate income to shareholders. It only attributes corporate tax.

By taking into account corporate taxes while ignoring corporate income, the Tax Foundation’s methodology drives up effective income tax rates for the super rich only because these rich happen to own a massive amount of corporate stock. We can better understand the dynamics at play here by considering the tax situations of business owners far from billionaire status.

Consider this comparison: Taxpayers A and B each own a profitable business that generates $49,999 of income in 2025. They each reinvest all business profits in their businesses, living off the savings they have sitting in tax-exempt bonds. A and B each have $1 of other income. A, who owns his business directly, reports the profits on his personal tax return, along with his dollar of other income, and pays $10,500 in tax. His effective tax rate is 21%.

B, who owns her business through a corporation, reports the profits on the corporation’s tax return, and the corporation pays $10,500 in tax. Since B’s own adjusted gross income is just one dollar, B’s effective tax rate according to the Tax Foundation would be 1,050,000%, 50,000 times A’s effective tax rate.

In its reporting, ProPublica also considered Warren Buffett’s effective income tax rate. Taking his personal federal income tax payments as a percentage of his true economic income, including the $24.3 billion increase in his wealth between 2014 and 2018, ProPublica determined his effective income tax rate to be 0.1%. Quite a far cry from 1,200%.

Before the Super Bowl brought global attention and hundreds of thousands of visitors to New Orleans in February, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry cleared out over 100 unhoused people from downtown, busing them to an unheated warehouse miles away.

In our community of Indianapolis, advocates fear similar clear outs will happen when a planned city shelter outside the downtown area is finished.

Which makes me think of Stanley Milgram and Bryan Stevenson.

“On that fifth day, the weather was very cold and rainy. All I could think about was the young dad and his son without a home, with a job disrupted, and the young boy missing school.”

Milgram was the Yale University psychologist who conducted the famous experiments in the 1960s that showed a disturbing willingness of study participants to follow orders to administer what they thought were powerful electric shocks to other study participants.

The unsettling results remain widely known. But one component of Milgram’s experiments is less often discussed: The study participants were far less likely to administer the shocks if they could hear or see the victims of their actions.

Milgram used the word “proximity” to describe that variable. Which is the same term that Bryan Stevenson uses when he describes how we can change the world.

Stevenson is the attorney behind the book Just Mercy and the film of the same name, and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative. Stevenson traces his lifelong devotion to ending mass incarceration and promoting racial justice back to an event when he was still a law student. While interning for a human rights organization, Stevenson was assigned to go to a maximum-security prison in Georgia and deliver some procedural case news to a man on death row.

But the planned brief meeting turned into a three-hour deep, wide-ranging conversation. At the end of his time with Stevenson, the prisoner sang the hymn, “I’m Pressing on the Upward Way.”

Which launched Stevenson on his lifelong trajectory devoted to seeking justice. “It’s because I got close enough to a condemned man to hear his song,” he says. “When you get proximate, you hear the songs. And those melodies in those songs will empower you, they will inspire you, and they will teach you what doing justice and loving mercy is all about.”

What Gov. Jeff Landry, Stanley Milgram, and Bryan Stevenson can all tell us is this: The closer we get to the millions of people who are facing evictions or already unhoused, the more likely we are to be motivated to do something about it.

Carolyn Kingen can tell us that, too.

A retired critical care cardiac nurse, Kingen in 2020 joined some of her fellow members of the Meridian Street United Methodist Church in Indianapolis for a book study group that chose to read Matthew Desmond’s Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. After reading and talking about the horrors of our nation’s eviction crisis, where 3.6 million households face forced removal from their homes each year, the group decided to see for themselves.

On one of Kingen’s first visits to eviction court, she heard a father of a seven-year-old boy explain to the judge that he had fallen behind on rent because he had not received expected overtime pay from his job. But, the father said, the overtime boost would be coming through in his next paycheck, which was arriving in a week. He could catch up on rent then, and pay late fees too.

The judge, unmoved, ordered the family to be evicted within five days. “The entire case lasted three or four minutes,” Kingen recalls. “In those few minutes, the decision was made that an employed father and mother had to pack their belongings and get out.”

“On that fifth day, the weather was very cold and rainy. All I could think about was the young dad and his son without a home, with a job disrupted, and the young boy missing school.”

“I Could Be That Tenant”

Experiences like this spurred Kingen and the book group to create a Housing Justice Task Force in their church, and then join with other congregations of different faiths to create the Indiana Eviction Justice Network. I teach a law school clinic where my students and I represent people facing eviction in the same area. I can attest that the presence of court watchers changes the tenor of the proceedings, ramping up the respect paid to tenants facing the loss of their homes.

And the eviction court watchers go beyond the doors of the courtrooms. They take the proximity-provided lessons and use them to advocate with elected officials and the judges themselves. Rabbi Aaron Spiegel, who as director of the Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance coordinates the court-watching program, connects the volunteers with lawmakers to push for housing reforms like mediation before eviction orders, sealings of past eviction records, living wages, and more and better affordable housing.

“Court watchers often know more about systemic housing issues than the elected officials they are talking to,” Spiegel says. Earlier this year, court watchers mobilized to lobby Indiana legislators in opposition to a bill that would have criminalized sleeping in public spaces. Last month, the legislation was withdrawn by its sponsor.

Court proceedings are open to the public, and several other communities across the country, in places like Greensboro, North Carolina; Houston, and Chicago, have court-watching programs, often connected to justice advocacy.

Kingen and many of the other court watchers are motivated by their faith or moral principles. “We are called to care for the poor, the orphans, widows—and in today’s society, we would include any group that is shunned or rejected,” she says. “I try to see Christ in the faces of every person I meet.”

Rabbi Spiegel says this same call to action crosses faith and moral traditions. “All religious traditions teach that we must take care of the ‘least among us’ and as such, housing is a human right,” he says.

The proximity Carolyn Kingen experiences in court allows her to see in those facing eviction not just the divine but herself as well. Kingen recalls a time when she could not pay her rent, but was fortunate enough to have a family member step up to help. “Each time I court watch, I try to remind myself that I could be that tenant appearing before the judge,” she says.

Placing herself in the shoes of those facing homelessness is far easier to do when she can be in the same room and hear their stories, Kingen says. Court proceedings are open to the public, and several other communities across the country, in places like Greensboro, North Carolina; Houston, and Chicago, have court-watching programs, often connected to justice advocacy.

Check and see if there is a program in your community. And if there isn’t, maybe consider helping start one yourself.

            Trump’s interest in rapprochement with Russia and his annoyance with Ukraine, embodied by last week’s Oval Office shouting match, has corporate pundits and politicians freaking out. Trump’s former national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, said Trump’s dressing down of Volodymyr Zelensky made him “ashamed for my nation”—something he’s never said about Guantánamo or torture or invading Iraq or even racism.

Whenever U.S. support for Ukraine gets questioned, count on militaristic whores to drag out cut-and-paste fearmongering from the Cold War era.

            Putin aims to “absorb Ukraine, all of it, and likely the other former states of the Soviet Union, too,” the editorial board of Canada’s Globe and Mail claimed in 2022.

            “Putin’s Ukraine invasion is the first time in 80 years that a great power has moved to conquer a sovereign nation,” Mitt Romney wrote in 2022. Um—Afghanistan? Iraq? Panama? “It echoes Hitler’s absorption of Czechoslovakia and his lust for Poland. But even more, it reflects Putin’s drive to reconstitute the Soviet Union—or at least its dominant sphere of influence.”

            “Putin saw the invasion of Ukraine as a key step toward rebuilding the Russian Empire,” Mark Temnycky of the Atlantic Council wrote in 2023.

            Dire warnings of the Russian threat have been around for a while. It’s not just Ukraine! They’re coming for YOU!

“[Putin’s] next move will be to invade the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. When this happens, the United States will need to move armored forces quickly to Europe, via Poland, in order to prevent NATO from being checkmated, and it’s going to have a problem doing that. Note that I said ‘when’ Putin invades rather than ‘if,’” Jerry Hendrix of The National Review wrote.

That was seven years ago, in 2018. We’re still waiting.

            No one can predict the future. All we can do is consider data and evidence, calculate the odds of the likeliest scenario and prepare accordingly.

            When you consider the issue objectively, without emotion, the odds that the Russia hawks are right—and that Putin is planning to invade Europe or, as Zelensky warns, that he plans to cross our “nice ocean” to attack the United States—are infinitesimal.

            The neocons love to say that Putin has said that he wants to reunite the Soviet Union. “Putin has openly declared his ambition to reassemble the Soviet Union, a goal he reiterated in his historical grievances aired before the Ukraine invasion,” Franz-Stefan Gady of the Center for International and Strategic Studies wrote last year in Foreign Policy.

            Nothing could be further from the truth. But, as the French social psychologist and philosopher Gustave Le Bon observed, “A lie, when it is repeated often enough, gains a sort of existence of its own, and the effort to destroy it becomes almost futile against the credulity of the masses.” Americans are drowning in propaganda.

            We don’t know what’s inside Putin’s brain. We do know what Putin has said. What Putin has said bears no relation to how he’s misquoted in the West.

            Putin did describe the 1991 collapse of the USSR as a “a major geopolitical disaster of the century” in  2005 State of the Union address. Considering that between 3 and 7 million former Soviet citizens died prematurely as a result and left Russia under the control of the inept alcoholic Boris Yeltsin, Putin has good reasons for his assessment. But that doesn’t mean he wants to get the band back together.

            “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart,” Putin has been saying since at least 2000, paraphrasing Disraeli. “Whoever wants it back has no brain.”

            “The West fears the recreation of the Soviet Union, despite nobody planning on one,” Putin mused on RT in 2015.

            “There will be no Soviet Union. The past will not come back. Today, Russia does not need this and this is not our aim,” Putin said in September 2022.

            I don’t know whether Putin is lying or telling the truth. I do know that government officials and respected, award-winning journalists have been repeatedly lying about what Putin says.

            We do, however, have concrete evidence of Putin’s intentions beyond official statements.

            If I were the president of Russia, and I was interested in reassembling the Soviet Union, I would start with the low-hanging fruit, the territories that would be most interested in coming back under the fold of Moscow. Belarus, where most citizens believe that life was better under the USSR and is slowly moving toward a union state with Russia, would be an easy lift. Most citizens of the Central Asian republics of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have a favorable view of Russia and nostalgia for the Soviet period. If Russia were to invade, the reaction would range from joy to indifference. And Tajikistan turns out to have a lot of oil and gas.

            Russia has expressed no interest whatsoever in resuming control of these former Soviet spaces.

            Why not? Reabsorbing Ukraine, the Baltics and the Central Asian republics would mean subsidizing countries that are poorer and less developed than Russia. Putin’s Russia, reliant on energy exports, doesn’t want to subsidize a new union the way the USSR did. The war in Ukraine is less about recreating the USSR than about ensuring that a buffer state doesn’t become a full-fledged NATO vassal state aligned with the U.S.

            Relax.

The Russians are not coming.

(Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis and The TMI Show with political analyst Manila Chan. Subscribe: tedrall.Substack.com.)

The post The Russians Are Coming? Not Really. first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post The Russians Are Coming? Not Really. appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Full details are yet to emerge of the “peace plan” that the UK, EU and Ukrainian leaders worked out in London on Sunday, and are to present to the Trump administration. But from what they have said so far, while one part is necessary and even essential, another is obstructive and potentially disastrous.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said after the summit that the following four points were agreed: To keep providing military aid to Ukraine; that Ukraine must participate in all peace talks; that European states will aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine; and that they will form a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there in future.

This, Starmer said, would mean a European “peacekeeping” force including British troops. However, he has previously said that it would be essential for the U.S. to provide a security “backstop” for such a force. In other words, after all the talk of Europe “stepping up” and the need for European security “independence” from the Washington, this would in fact make Europe even more dependent on Washington, because it would put European troops in an extremely dangerous situation from which (not for the first time) they would expect the U.S. to save them in case of trouble.

While negotiations continue, so should existing levels of Western military aid, for otherwise the Russian government may be emboldened to reject any reasonable compromise. The Russian government has however repeatedly rejected any peacekeeping force including troops from NATO countries, which for Moscow is simply the equivalent of NATO membership. Trying to insert this into a proposed peace settlement is therefore either pointless or a deliberate attempt to derail the negotiations.

There is also a risk that the Ukrainian leadership (which, as Friday’s clash with Trump demonstrated, is prey to some very serious illusions about its position) may be emboldened to reject a compromise peace, and thereby end up with a very much worse one.

The idea that a powerful Western military force is also necessary to “guarantee” a peace settlement against future Russian aggression is moreover based on the fundamental misconception that there can be in international affairs any such thing as an absolute and permanent “guarantee.”

My colleagues George Beebe, Mark Episkopos and I discuss the actual terms of a settlement in a new brief, “Peace Through Strength: Sources of US Leverage in Negotiations.”

Those terms that Russia could accept and that would provide reasonable hope of enduring peace are the following: Firstly, that Ukraine should continue to receive from the West and help to produce the defensive weapons with which they have so far fought the Russian army almost to a standstill and inflicted very heavy casualties: drones, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, landmines, 155 mm howitzers and the ammunition for them. Long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory should be excluded as part of the peace settlement, but with the proviso that the West would of course provide them if Russia resumed the war.

Secondly, there should be a United Nations peacekeeping force with soldiers drawn from genuinely neutral states from the “Global South.” Russia calls these countries “the Global Majority” and has made reaching out to them a central part of its international strategy. Several are also fellow members of the BRICS group. Indian, Brazilian and South African peacekeepers would not be able to defeat a new Russian invasion (or a Ukrainian resumption of the war) — but Moscow would be deeply unwilling to risk killing them.

Finally, and obviously, a stable peace settlement must be one that meets enough of Russia’s, and Ukraine’s, essential conditions. If they cannot be made minimally compatible, there will be no settlement. It is however utterly pointless for European leaders to go on imagining that a peace can somehow be imposed on the Russian government, and not negotiated with it. They should pay heed when Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that peace can only come to Ukraine if Putin is involved in the negotiations, and that Trump "is the only person on Earth who has any chance whatsoever of bringing him to a table to see what it is he would be willing to end the war on."

The behavior of the European governments is shaped by a belief in limitless Russian territorial ambition, hostility to the West, and reckless aggression that if genuinely held, would seem to make any pursuit of peace utterly pointless. The only sensible Western strategy would be to cripple or destroy Russia as a state — the only problem being, as Trump has stated, that this would probably lead to World War III and the end of civilization.

“There has almost always been an outright hostility that is shown towards people of the Christian faith,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said on a podcast recently. He was talking with Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana lawmaker and president of the Family Research Council, about freedom of religion and the actions of the second Trump administration.

I have to admit that such a statement from this country’s third most powerful politician and an avowed Christian nationalist almost takes my breath away. Of all the people facing hostility, discrimination, and violence now and throughout history, Christians like Mike Johnson rank low on the list. Still, his comment is consistent with a disturbing religious trend in the country right now.

As an early act of his second administration, President Donald Trump has created an anti-Christian bias task force to be chaired by Attorney General Pam Bondi. At the same time, he’s slashing federal jobs and programs, threatening Medicaid, Head Start, the Department of Education, affordable housing programs, accommodations for the disabled, environmental protections, public health and safety, Social Security, and Medicare, while scapegoating immigrants and trans kids. It’s particularly ironic that Trump, Johnson, and the people with them in the top echelons of power are targeting those that the Bible is most concerned about—children, the poor, immigrants, the sick and disabled, women, the vulnerable, and the Earth itself. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the richest man ever to exist, who has built his wealth off exploiting the poor, goes so far as to call the impoverished “parasites.” After all, there are more than 2,000 biblical passages that speak about protecting the vulnerable, offering good news to the poor, stewarding God’s creation, and bringing judgment down upon those with wealth and power who make people suffer.

The Christian nationalism, exceptionalism, and white supremacy ascendant in Trump 2.0 has evolved from a long genealogy that has enabled an elite strata of mostly white Christian men to rule society and amass enormous wealth and power throughout American history.

Pope Francis himself has weighed in on the regressive policies and posture of the current administration. To America’s bishops he wrote, “The true common good is promoted when society and government, with creativity and strict respect for the rights of all—as I have affirmed on numerous occasions—welcomes, protects, promotes, and integrates the most fragile, unprotected, and vulnerable.” Indeed, if any Christians are under attack right now, it’s those included in what liberation theologians have called “God’s preferential option for the poor” (the very creation for whom God has special love and care) and those standing up with and for them.

The Pope hasn’t been the only one to challenge the use of religion in the Trump administration. Since the inauguration, the actions of Johnson, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and others have been opposed and decried by people of faith of many persuasions. Remember Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde imploring President Trump to show mercy, especially to immigrants and LGBTQ+ people, at the Inaugural Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral? Since her gentle reminder that the Bible teaches love, truth, and mercy, she has received regular and credible death threats on a daily basis, even as people have also flocked to the cathedral and other houses of worship in search of moral leaders willing to stand up to the bullying tactics of Donald Trump, the richest man on earth Elon Musk, and their cronies.

In response to Trump’s threats of mass detention and deportation, especially removing “sensitive sites” status from houses of worship, schools, and hospitals, while threatening “sanctuary cities” with a loss of federal funding, 27 religious groups have sued the Trump administration for infringement of their religious liberty to honor and worship God by loving their immigrant neighbors. Kelsi Corkran, a lawyer with the Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and lead counsel in that lawsuit, said that plaintiffs joined the suit “because their scripture, teaching, and traditions offer irrefutable unanimity on their religious obligation to embrace and serve the refugees, asylum-seekers, and immigrants in their midst without regard to documentation or legal status.”

Faith leaders are coming together to support and protect transgender and nonbinary people now under attack by the Trump administration as well. My colleagues Aaron Scott and Moses Hernandez-McGavin recently penned an article for Religion News Service where they affirmed the dignity of LGBTQ+ people, even as Christian nationalists continue to build their influence and power by damning LGBTQ+ communities, all while claiming to protect children and traditional family values. “Gender diversity,” they wrote,

is a fact of human existence older than Scripture and is thoroughly attested to in the Bible. Jesus’ teaching about eunuchs in the Gospel of Matthew makes clear there are human beings who exist outside of the gender binary from birth, as well as those who live outside the gender binary “for the sake of the kingdom.” In the story of the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism, the Book of Acts lifts up the spiritual leadership of gender nonconforming people of African descent. In the Hebrew Bible’s Book of Isaiah, God affirms not only the sanctity but the spiritual importance of people outside the gender binary, promising us “a name better than sons and daughters.”… The Talmud reflects this affirmation of gender diversity, recognizing no fewer than seven genders.A Battle for the Bible in History

The battle of theologies taking place right now is anything but a new phenomenon, even if it’s at an inflection point, with life-and-death consequences for our democracy, Christianity itself, and those who are God’s greatest concern. The Christian nationalism, exceptionalism, and white supremacy ascendant in Trump 2.0 has evolved from a long genealogy that has enabled an elite strata of mostly white Christian men to rule society and amass enormous wealth and power throughout American history.

Such Christians have always anointed themselves with the lie of divine righteousness, while insisting that they are God’s chosen representatives on Earth. To maintain this charade, they have brandished the Bible like a cudgel, bludgeoning poor people, people of color, the Indigenous, women, LGBTQ+ people, and others with tales of their supposed sinfulness meant to distract, demean, divide, and dispossess. Therefore, if we are truly serious about confronting and countering the influence of such an authoritarian version of Christianity under Trump, Vance, Johnson, and their associates and followers, we must learn from how it’s been wielded (and challenged) in other times in history.

The roots of such idolatry reach back centuries, even before the founding of this nation, to the conquest of Indigenous lands by European invaders. In 1493, after Spain first sent its ships to islands in the Caribbean, Pope Alexander VI issued the Doctrine of Discovery, a series of papal bulls granting all newly “discovered” lands to their Christian conquerors. Those church documents asserted the supposed “godlessness” of Indigenous peoples, smoothing over the ruthless colonial campaign of extermination being waged with a veneer of moral virtue. Centuries later, the idea of “manifest destiny” drew on the same religious underpinnings as the Doctrine of Discovery, popularizing the belief that white Christians were destined by God to control and therefore redeem the lands of the West. Manifest destiny not only valorized the violence of westward expansion but sanctified and made exceptional the emerging project of American imperialism. God, the argument went, had chosen this nation to be a beacon of hope, a city upon a hill for the whole world.

Today, while the Trump administration continues to unveil new attacks daily on what the Bible calls, “the least of these,” it’s important to remember the prophetic tradition of faith leaders of the past as well as the heroic, if often unnoticed, moral organizing happening now.

Alongside the dispossession and attempted extermination of Indigenous peoples, invocations of God and the Bible were used to justify the enslavement of African peoples and their descendants. Slaveholders cherry-picked passages from the book of Ephesians—“slaves obey your earthly masters”—and lines from other epistles of the Apostle Paul to claim that slavery was ordained by God. They ripped out of the pages on the Exodus from Egypt, huge sections of the prophets, and even Jesus’ inaugural sermon praising the poor and dispossessed from the Bibles they gave to their enslaved workers. Those “Slave Bibles” would serve as evidence of just how dangerous the unadulterated gospel was to the legitimacy of the slaveholding planter class.

They also twisted theology to serve their political needs by obscuring the common interests of enslaved Black workers and poor Southern whites. Readings of the Bible that claimed God had singled out Black people for slave labor helped the Southern ruling class turn many of the region’s majority of poor whites into zealous defenders of a system that relegated them to marginal lands and poverty wages.

After the fall of the Confederacy, the Bible remained core to the new racialized divide-and-conquer system in the South. Pro-segregationist preachers, no longer able to use the Bible to defend slavery per se, turned to stories like the Tower of Babel to claim that God desired racial segregation and abhorred intermarriage across racial lines. In 1954, Baptist preacher Carey Daniel wrote a pamphlet entitled God the Original Segregationist in which he explained: “When first He separated the Black race from the white and lighter skinned races He did not simply put them in different parts of town. He did not even put them in different towns or states. Nay, He did not even put them in adjoining countries.” The pamphlet was distributed widely by White Citizens’ Councils and sold more than a million copies.

Parallel to the theological justifications for the system of segregation that came to be known as Jim Crow, a national theology of industrial capitalism emerged in the late 1800s and early 1900s. During the Gilded Age, a prosperity gospel and its theology of muscular Christianity flourished among the white upper class. Amid the excesses of the Second Industrial Revolution, they celebrated their own hard work and moral rectitude and bemoaned the personal failings of the poor. When the economic bubble finally burst in 1929 with the Great Depression and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal ushered in an unprecedented era of financial regulation and labor protection, the nation’s corporate class turned once again to the church to fight back and put a stamp of approval on its free-market aspirations.

As historian Kevin Kruse writes in One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America, in the 1930s and 1940s, “corporate titans enlisted conservative clergymen in an effort to promote new political arguments embodied in the phrase ‘freedom under God.’ As the private correspondence and public claims of the men leading this charge make clear, this new ideology was designed to defeat the state power its architects feared most—not the Soviet regime in Moscow, but Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal administration in Washington. With ample funding from major corporations, prominent industrialists, and business lobbies such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the 1930s and 1940s, these new evangelists for free enterprise promoted a vision best characterized as ‘Christian libertarianism.’”

The phrase “freedom under God” captures the tension at the heart of the long battle over the Bible in this country in which there have always been two diametrically opposed visions of freedom: on one side, the freedom of the vast majority of the people to enjoy the fruits of their labor and live with dignity and self-determination; on the other side, the freedom of the wealthy to control society, sow division, and hoard the planet’s (and in Elon Musk’s case, the galaxy’s) abundance for themselves. Poor people, disproportionately poor people of color, have always been on the front lines of this battle, as both canaries in the coal mine and prophetic leaders. Think of it this way in the age of Trump: As their lives go, so goes the nation.

Ordo Amoris and Other Theologies of the Day

This age-old debate is playing out in JD Vance’s recent statement about “ordo amoris” (or “rightly-ordered love“). Weighing in on cutting both domestic and global aid as well as scapegoating immigrants, the vice president wrote on social media, “You love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.”

Pope Francis offered a fitting rebuttal to Vance’s statement and the actions of the second Trump administration by summing up its deeply heretical nature and echoing a historic prophetic tradition of increasing importance again today. In his letter to the American bishops, urging them to reject Vance’s theology of isolationism and egotism, Pope Francis wrote, “Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’ (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

As this statement from the Pope reminds us, history is replete with examples of people from many religions who have grounded their struggles for justice in the holy word and the spirit of God, not just extremists trying to claim and justify their lust for power and avarice for wealth. Abolitionists, suffragists, labor organizers, student protestors, civil rights leaders, and various representatives of poor and oppressed people have insisted that divinity cannot be reduced to private matters of the soul and salvation. They have affirmed that truth, love, and justice, starting with the most vulnerable and marginalized, are what matter the most to God. They have insisted that the worship of God must be concerned with the building of a society in which all life is cared for and treated with dignity. In every previous era, there were courageous people for whom protest and public action were a form of prayer, even as the religious leaders and institutions of their day hid behind sanctuary walls—walls currently being torn down again to release forces devastating to the most vulnerable among us and to the planet itself.

Today, while the Trump administration continues to unveil new attacks daily on what the Bible calls, “the least of these,” it’s important to remember the prophetic tradition of faith leaders of the past as well as the heroic, if often unnoticed, moral organizing happening now. I return to my colleagues Aaron Scott and Moses Hernandez-McGavin who sum up the sentiment of many people of faith in our society today: “God’s love and truth are alive whether elected officials seek to legislate them out of existence or not. God’s Word continues to call for justice and mercy for all people regardless of the distortions of the Word by religious and political leaders obsessed with the worship of their own power. They are not God. And God will not, and cannot, be stopped.“

As they conclude, offering a message of hope and encouragement in these dark and dangerous days: “God’s liberating action will break through in this world through the steadfast work and witness of people of goodwill who are beholden to a higher law, who refuse to comply with unjust executive orders, who continue to defend the vulnerable against abuses of the powerful in courtrooms and school buildings and hospitals and in the streets across the country.”

The question then is: In the second age of Donald Trump, which side will you choose?

Donald Trump and Elon Musk keep claiming that their scorched-earth approach to remaking the federal government is made necessary by the prevalence of fraud and waste. Musk’s DOGE attack-squad tabulates its progress on a Wall of Receipts that currently purports to have saved Uncle Sam $65 billion.

That number appears to have been plucked out of thin air. The savings for the 2,300 individual contracts listed on the site add up to only $9.6 billion, and even that amount is shaky. For example, the single biggest savings, $1.9 billion, is attached to a Treasury Department contract that is reported to have ended during the Biden Administration.

DOGE gives no details of any fraud it may have found in the contracts. That is not surprising, since it is impossible to have done a careful examination of that many contracts in such a short amount of time.

Large numbers of the contracts are linked to agencies the Trump Administration is in the process of dismantling. USAID accounts for 246 contracts with total purported savings of $4.2 billion. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 404 listings with savings of $109 million. The Education Department, reported to be headed for the chopping block, has 119 contracts with supposed savings of $659 million.

What we see in DOGE is instead the illusion of an attack on corruption that serves as a smokescreen for the Trump Administration’s scheme to dismantle large portions of the federal government.

It seems clear DOGE targeted those contracts because of the agency involved, not any evidence of misconduct. Among the remaining 769 contracts, there are many that seem to be targeted for ideological reasons. They include numerous awards whose descriptions refer to now-taboo areas such as DEI or environmental justice.

There are more than 100 listings for subscriptions, especially for expensive services such as Politico, Bloomberg Law, and Lexis Nexis. Those may not always be worth the cost, but there is nothing corrupt about the need for an agency to have good access to information.

Then there are listings for contracts that have not gone into effect. The second biggest saving amount, $318 million, is attached to an Office of Personnel Management pre-award. How can there be fraud when there is no contractor yet?

DOGE’s list also contains numerous entries with obvious errors. These include instances in which there are two links pointing to different contract awards, making it unclear which one is meant to be included. For example, there is a $149 million savings connected both to a contractor called Advanced Automation Technologies Inc. (for three assistants) and to Airgas USA for refrigerated liquid gases.

By pointing to DOGE’s sloppy work, I do not mean to deny the existence of contract fraud. The problem is that Musk’s people, whether through ignorance or design, are looking in the wrong places. They seem to be ignoring the types of large contractors that have repeatedly been found to have cheated federal agencies.

The classic examples are the big weapons producers. As of now, DOGE lists only $8 million in savings from Defense Department contracts—and those are mainly from DEI awards and subscriptions. The same is true for the Department of Health and Human Services, even though healthcare is a major source of contractor fraud.

What gets forgotten in the claims about fraud coming from Trump and Musk is that the federal government already had a robust system for fighting contractor misconduct. Audits were done by agency inspectors general—who have now been fired by Trump—and prosecutions were launched by the Justice Department using the False Claims Act. Over the past decade, the DOJ has collected about $30 billion in fines and settlements.

That is serious fraud fighting. What we see in DOGE is instead the illusion of an attack on corruption that serves as a smokescreen for the Trump Administration’s scheme to dismantle large portions of the federal government. It remains to be seen how long they can keep up the charade.

This piece was originally published in the Dirt Diggers Digest newsletter.

The meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump at the White House devolved into a “shouting match” in the Oval Office. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance criticized Zelenskyy’s approach, with Trump accusing him of “gambling with World War III.” Meanwhile, Zelenskyy voiced concerns that deals with Russia would not be kept and that Ukraine needed stronger security guarantees.

The recent clash between the two wasn’t merely a diplomatic hiccup; it was a stark illustration of the West’s eroding credibility and the precarious position in which Ukraine finds itself. The fallout from this meeting reverberates far beyond the walls of the Oval Office, exposing deep fissures and eliciting widespread repercussions that shake the very foundations of the global order.

The spectacle of a U.S. president publicly berating a wartime leader, culminating in Zelenskyy’s abrupt dismissal from the White House, shattered the carefully constructed image of unwavering Western support for Ukraine. This public display of discord sent shockwaves through the international community, raising serious questions about the reliability of U.S. commitments and the cohesion of the Western alliance.

The Trump-Zelenskyy clash serves as a stark warning.

For years, the West has presented a united front against Russia, pledging unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This carefully crafted narrative, however, crumbled under the weight of the Trump-Zelenskyy confrontation. The heated exchange, marked by accusations of ingratitude and demands for concessions, exposed a stark reality: the West’s commitment to Ukraine is not monolithic, and national interests often trump shared values.

The incident has severely damaged Ukraine’s trust in its Western allies. Zelenskyy, who has tirelessly sought international support for his nation’s defense, was publicly humiliated by a U.S. president who prioritized his own political agenda over the plight of a war-torn nation. The abrupt cancellation of the critical minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine, while presented as diplomatic fallout, exposes a potentially darker reality: the exploitation of a nation in crisis. Instead of a mutually beneficial partnership, the deal’s collapse reveals the inherent risks of resource extraction during wartime.

Beyond the immediate impact on Ukraine, the Trump-Zelenskyy clash has widened the fissures within the transatlantic relationship. European allies, who have consistently demonstrated strong solidarity with Ukraine, watched in dismay as their most powerful partner publicly undermined a key ally.

The European Union has reaffirmed its unwavering support for Ukraine. Publicly, through statements and social media, EU officials emphasized solidarity and continued commitment to a “just and lasting peace.” This display of backing seeks to counterbalance the perceived U.S. shift, reassuring Ukraine of its enduring partnership. The EU’s message underscored Ukraine’s dignity and bravery, aiming to bolster morale and reinforce the notion that Ukraine is not alone. This strategic move highlights the EU’s attempt to solidify its role as a steadfast ally, amidst evolving geopolitical dynamics.

This incident has fueled anxieties about the reliability of U.S. leadership and the future of the transatlantic alliance. European leaders are now left to grapple with the implications of a more assertive and unpredictable US foreign policy, raising concerns about the West’s collective ability to respond effectively to global challenges.

The international community reacted to the White House debacle with a chorus of disapproval. Global leaders and commentators alike condemned the Trump administration’s actions, expressing concern over the erosion of diplomatic norms and the potential for further destabilizing the already volatile security environment. The incident has fueled criticism of the West’s handling of the Ukrainian crisis, with many questioning the efficacy and sincerity of Western support.

The repercussions of the Trump-Zelenskyy clash extend far beyond the immediate fallout. It has eroded trust in Western leadership, undermined the credibility of international diplomacy, and left Ukraine in a more precarious position. The incident serves as a stark reminder that the foundations of the global order are fragile and susceptible to the whims of individual leaders..

The Trump-Zelenskyy clash is not merely an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeper malaise within the Western alliance. The erosion of trust, the rise of nationalism, and the increasing divergence of national interests are all contributing to a weakening of the transatlantic partnership. This trend poses significant challenges to the West’s ability to address global threats.

For China, this diplomatic debacle presents a significant opportunity to observe the fracturing of Western unity. The visible discord between Ukraine and the United States reinforces China’s narrative of a declining West and a shifting global power balance. This perceived weakness in the Western alliance provides China with strategic leverage. The erosion of Western credibility also allows China to position itself as a more reliable partner for nations wary of Western influence, especially in the Global South. However, China must also be mindful that instability stemming from such discord could create unforeseen challenges for its own economic and geopolitical interests.

The Trump-Zelenskyy clash serves as a stark warning. It underscores the fragility of alliances, the dangers of unchecked nationalism, and the importance of upholding diplomatic norms. The international community must learn from this episode and work to rebuild trust, strengthen alliances, and reaffirm its commitment to a rules-based international order. The stakes could not be higher.

This past week began on a deeply disturbing note. Elon Musk reposted on X (formerly Twitter) a dangerously false attack on more than a dozen American entities who had received USAID or State Department grants over the past decade. The original post referred to the groups as “terrorist-linked.” In his repost Musk commented, “As many people have said, why pay terrorist organizations and certain countries to hate us when they’re perfectly willing to do it for free?”

The groups listed in the original post had apparently been compiled by an individual with an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bias. He appears to have gone through a list of grant recipients and randomly culled out entities with “Arab” or “Muslim” in their name or who had done work in the Middle East. I don’t know all of the groups mentioned, but those I do know—for example, American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA)—have been in the forefront of providing lifesaving support to refugees or victims of war or natural disasters, and, in the process, building better ties between the U.S. and affected communities in need across the Middle East. Other groups I recognized had equally important, impressive records of service.

What was obviously most troubling to me was that my organization, the Arab American Institute, was second on the list. This was upsetting for two reasons: The charge was profoundly off-base and irresponsibly dangerous.

As welcoming and inclusive as the U.S. can be, we also must acknowledge that our country has a history of hate and violence, a disproportionate amount of which in recent decades has been directed at Arab Americans and supporters of Palestinian rights.

The fact is that the institute received a State Department grant in 2018 (during the first Trump administration) to create partnerships between Arab American elected officials and public servants with local elected officials in Tunisia. The institute, which was founded in 1985, has a proud history of encouraging Arab Americans to get elected to local office. As our work progressed, we realized that many of these young leaders had never been to the Middle East, and if they had gone at all, it had simply been to the countries from which their parents had come. I had long hoped to create a program that would enable them to both get exposure to and an understanding of the broader Arab World, and to be able to share their experiences and what they had learned in American political life with their counterparts in Arab countries.

The initial phase of the program was so successful that the State Department supported expanding it into Morocco and then Jordan. It was a delight to see these young Arab and Arab American participants working together in a collaborative manner, discussing problems they face in municipal governance and actions that could be taken to improve constituent services—how to address local needs and challenges. They worked together in building local democracy and finding solutions that made a difference in people’s day-to-day lives—issues like trash collection, creating community tech hubs, and providing support for families with disabled children. The program ended in 2023.

For an individual infected by an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bias to identify these people-to-people efforts with support for terrorism is so wrong that it defies understanding. And for a person of Mr. Musk’s standing in this administration to have amplified this message with a repost and comment is irresponsibly dangerous.

As welcoming and inclusive as the U.S. can be, we also must acknowledge that our country has a history of hate and violence, a disproportionate amount of which in recent decades has been directed at Arab Americans and supporters of Palestinian rights. After a former employee of mine at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee was murdered in 1985, I was asked to testify before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. Congress on hate and violence directed against my community. In my testimony I noted how the environment for hate crimes against Arab Americans was fostered by those who have incited against us. I observed that when we have been called terrorists or terrorist supporters (sometimes by respected pro-Israel groups), it has spurred some to use violence against us. I know this personally from the content of death threats I have received over the years.

In the last two decades alone, there have been four convictions of individuals who have threatened my life and the lives of my family and my staff. These threats have most often been accompanied by accusations of terrorism or support for terrorism.

And so, I take it seriously when a person as powerful and well-positioned as Mr. Musk irresponsibly charges my institute with being a supporter of terrorism. That his post has been viewed by nearly 20 million people makes it even more concerning, as it only takes one deranged individual who has read it to decide to respond by striking out in an act of violence.

Some have cautioned us not to react to Musk’s incitement, hoping that it would just fade away. I disagree. In the end, the best defense we have is to point out both how wrong he has been and the danger posed by his words.