Common Dreams

The organizers behind the anti-Trump "No Kings" demonstrations that saw millions take to the streets earlier this year announced Tuesday their next major protest will take place on Oct. 18.

Following thousands of events nationwide on June 14 that brought millions of people out to decry the actions of President Donald Trump, the announcement for the new date, said organizers in a media alert,

Fresh links on the website of the No Kings coalition—which includes Indivisible, the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, Public Citizen, SEIU, MoveOn, and dozens of others—include a place to "learn more" about planned actions in your local city and ways to support the effort.

"Just picking a day on the calendar won’t be enough to generate the kind of response we need in this moment," said Invisible in a call to action sent to members on Tuesday. "A national day of protest takes time and immense resources to prepare—tech and online infrastructure, marketing materials, security investments, staging/sounds, and so much more."

With Trump "doubling down on his authoritarian tactics," the group continued, the need for sustained opposition has only grown more clear since the earlier actions.

Trump, said Invisible, "is disappearing immigrants to sprawling concentration camps, sending troops into our cities, threatening to interfere in elections, rigging maps to steal power from the voters, and orchestrating a massive giveaway to his billionaire allies as families struggle. Trump is ramping up his attacks on our rights and democracy, but we’re not backing down. On October 18, we're taking to the streets in more cities and in larger numbers to remind Trump, his cronies, and those on the sidelines looking for hope: America has no kings."

Republicans want to stop subsidizing Americans who benefit from government-funded health programs. But by far the greatest American subsidies go to the millionaires, the 10% of Americans who own 93 percent of the stock market.

That's in part because of the so-called tax expenditures, which include mortgage deductions, interest and dividend exclusions, and reduced rates on capital gains, and which go almost entirely to the 13.7% of Americans who report enough income to itemize their taxes. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "the cost of all federal income tax expenditures was higher than..the combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid."

A 2015 NBER study found that 70 percent of federal spending on housing was in the form of tax-based deductions that largely benefit the rich. Families with expensive homes can take a tax break of up to a half-million dollars when they decide to sell. And the wealthiest among us can take a mortgage interest deduction for a second home, which might even be a yacht.

Yet while the millionaires subsidize their estates, the proposed Republican budget would make drastic cuts to low-income housing programs.

Daddy-Made Millionaires

It gets worse. The tax designers have figured out how to gift their heirs with billions in redirected tax revenue. In a massive subsidy for the super-rich, the tax code includes a so-called stepped-upprovision which allows the super-rich to leave much of their multi-trillion-dollar stock market fortunes to their children with all the accumulated gains magically erased, and thus, in many instances, without a single dollar in taxes coming due.

If daddy and mommy's stock has grown from $10 to $100 over the years, the kids won't pay any taxes on that $90 gain, and society's potential revenue is wiped out. As baby boomers age and pass away, more and more privileged children will become accidental millionaires.

Yet while the kids of millionaires skip out on taxes, Republicans want to take food stamp benefits away from millions of poor kids.

Subsidies on American Lives

With regard to big business subsidies, economist Dean Baker says: "These government-granted monopolies likely transfer more than $1 trillion a year ($8,000 per household) from the rest of us to [those] in a position to benefit from them. In 1980 we were spending about 0.4 percent of GDP...on prescription drugs and other pharmaceutical products. Currently we spend more than 2.3 percent of GDP."

Big Pharma welfare forces us to pay much more than other countries for our medicine. According to The National Library of Medicine, "In 2022, U.S. prices across all drugs (brands and generics) were nearly three times as high as prices in 33 OECD comparison countries....In 2022, U.S. prices for insulin products were nearly ten times as high as prices in 33 OECD comparison countries."

And taking the pain to an absurd extreme, Forbes reports that "Sovaldi (a breakthrough treatment for hepatitis C) cost $84,000 for a 12-week course when it was initially launched in the U.S. In contrast, the same treatment is available in other countries, such as India, for less than $1,000."

Yet while medication for the elderly becomes evermore expensive, Republicans have proposed the largest cuts to Medicaid in history, taking health insurance away from millions of Americans.

Republicans: It's Good to Lose Your Medicaid

House Speaker Mike Johnson said, "Work is good for you. You find dignity in work." Oklahoma Senator James Lankford said, "It’s not kicking people off Medicaid..It’s transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care."

Condescending enough?

Republicans say they only want to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. To do this they're wasting lives, defrauding their constituents, and abusing the privilege of leadership.

Outraged by Elon Musk's devastating contributions to the Trump administration, tens of thousands worldwide held "Tesla Takedown" protests at over 200 locations on Saturday.

Protests began the day in front of Tesla showrooms in Australia and New Zealand. They then rippled across Europe, including Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. In the US, protests occurred in nearly every state, including the northeast, south, midwest, and west coast.

"Elon Musk is destroying our democracy, and he's using the fortune he built at Tesla to do it," organizers wrote on Action Network, which has an interactive map of the protest sites. "We are taking action at Tesla to stop Musk's illegal coup."

Organizers also have a message for people with ties to the company: "Sell your Teslas, dump your stock, join the picket lines."

Since Musk began dismantling the federal bureaucracy as chief of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), critics have protested at Tesla facilities and posted videos about selling their vehicles on social media.

In an aerial view, protesters demonstrate against Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiatives during a nationwide “Tesla Takedown” rally at a dealership on March 29, 2025, in Austin, Texas. (Getty image)

While protesting at the Tesla dealership in west London, Louise Cobbett-Witten told The Guardian: “It’s too overwhelming to do nothing. There is real solace in coming together like this. Everyone has to do something. We haven’t got a big strategy besides just standing on the side of the street, holding signs and screaming.”

Alainn Hanson, of Washington, DC, brought her mother from Minnesota to their first Tesla protest. She told CNN: “I’m sick of billionaires trampling over working class people.”

President Donald Trump has made no secret of his disdain for immigrants, particularly the non-white variety from south of our border. His statements that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of our country,” coupled with Fox Newsreports on Hispanic-appearing migrants who commit crimes, leave little doubt about what he and his allies think of (non-white) immigrants and their contributions to this country.

So it didn’t surprise me that he recently began to follow through on his own and his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership’s earlier intentions (as far back as 2018) to detain immigrants—including unaccompanied children—at military posts. Earlier this month, the first deportation flight carried a few men from the American mainland to our naval base and Global War on Terror offshore prison site in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Trump’s spokesperson Karoline Leavitt referred to those migrants as “the worst criminal illegal aliens” and “the worst of the worst.” The flight apparently included members of a gang from Venezuela. Yet troops had already been ordered to ready the base in Cuba to house some 30,000 immigrants—a dramatic increase in its capacity—in military tent encampments meant to supplement existing detention facilities there.

The move is part of President Trump’s signature public policy initiative: to deport millions of immigrants living in the U.S. without clear legal status. Some 40% of those Trump deems “illegal” and has targeted for deportation actually have some sort of official permission to be here, whether because they already have temporary protected status, a scheduled date in immigration court, or refugee or asylum status.

The Trump administration isn’t planning to give the public the opportunity to critique the mistreatment of migrants deported to Guantánamo or any other military post or new detention center in an up-close-and-personal fashion.

Since none of them wear their immigration status on their shirts (thankfully!), it might prove unnerving indeed how officers from DHS will be selecting people for interrogation and detention. (It’s probably not the guy in front of you at Starbucks with a Scandinavian accent who just ordered a fancy drink.)

Everything from Ku Klux Klan flyers left in towns across the Midwest after the election to Trump’s order removing the protected status of schools, healthcare facilities, and places of worship when it comes to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids paints a dire picture. We haven’t seen profiling on this scale since the days after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, when the federal government ordered tens of thousands of men of Arab, Middle Eastern, and South Asian descent to register and be fingerprinted, subjecting them to increased surveillance and vigilante violence.

Since then, globally, the U.S. has detained hundreds of thousands of men (and, in some cases, boys) domestically and at that infamous prison in Guantánamo Bay, many without the ability to challenge their detentions and without the Red Cross surveillance that international law grants them.

Given the way legal standards for the treatment of people detained at federal facilities have eroded over the last two and a half decades, what may happen to tens of thousands of migrants at incarceration centers like Guantánamo in the years to come can only be a matter of grim speculation. However, one thing is clear: Whatever the treatment of the “worst of the worst” at or near that infamous prison, now a recyclable holder for whoever is the enemy of the day, it will be hidden from public view.

My Backyard

Such developments seem ever more real to me because my family lives about 40 miles from downtown Washington, D.C., where the Trump administration is churning out executive orders at breakneck speed. We live in a beautiful rural community in a county where about one-third of all residents are foreign-born. Those immigrant families bring cultural and linguistic richness to our schools, fuel the day-to-day operations of our many nearby military posts, run some of the most affordable supermarkets and tastiest restaurants around, and do the physically and emotionally demanding work of growing our local food. It’s hard for me to imagine how such immigrants are the worst of the worst.

Sure, some of them—like some of any other population you choose, including, of course, that convicted felon Donald Trump and crew—commit crimes. Yet rates of criminal activity among immigrants are much lower than among U.S. citizens. According to a 2020 study by the Bureau of Economic Research, immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than people born in this country.

I’m also a military spouse of more than 10 years and, in my family and community, it’s taken for granted that you’re going to be spending a lot of time with people who were born elsewhere, since immigrants of various stripes make up about 5% of our service members and are a significant part of military spouse communities as well. And believe me, many of the folks I know in those foreign-born subcategories of military communities are truly scared right now, even if for wealthier white families like mine, the suburbs and rural rolling hills around our nation’s capital offer opportunities to learn and a peacefulness that make them great places to raise kids.

A Changing Landscape

That said, in the wake of President Trump’s recent orders, the landscape around me is already changing. Some children whose family members are immigrants or who themselves are foreign-born have been absent from local schools. One of my children came home upset earlier this week and has been complaining of an unsettled stomach since learning that a good friend will have to leave the country due to fear of harassment under Trump’s new policies. Nearby, a Maryland high school teacher has been placed on leave after boasting on social media that he would help ICE identify “illegals” among his students. School administrators are bracing for armed federal agents to show up, demanding access to kids.

This is the kind of mundane horror and sadness I see blooming around me these days, as the news starts to report similar developments elsewhere: the Syracuse restaurant workers who were called into an ICE office and left with ankle monitors; the Guatemalan-American father of four in Ohio who was told by an ICE agent during his annual check-in that he needs to book a flight back to the country he only remembers from his teenage years or be deported. And these are the “lucky” ones who at least have some forewarning. Others won’t and will simply be subjected to the whims of federal immigration agents like those in New York City, where a memo issued by Mayor Eric Adams informed city workers that they can allow ICE agents into municipal facilities if they “reasonably feel threatened or fear for your safety or the safety of others around you.”

I wish I could say that history has taught Americans about the human costs of war and the dangers of indifference to it.

At least, the Trump administration’s immigration policies and actions are still subject to criticism by plucky journalists and activists prepared to call out instances of abuse of executive power, racial profiling, and violations of the right to education and other human rights. Count on this, though: The Trump administration isn’t planning to give the public the opportunity to critique the mistreatment of migrants deported to Guantánamo or any other military post or new detention center in an up-close-and-personal fashion. Such areas will be closed to all but servicemembers and assigned workers.

Sometimes even military family members won’t have the special authorization to enter them. In order to get in, you’ll need to present an official ID, have a reason to enter, possibly have a military service member directly authorize your access, and abide by specific restrictions on movement and rules about whether you can photograph anything on the base. At that base in Guantánamo, restrictions are even tighter and there are no guarantees that journalists will ever have access to migrants and their living conditions there.

Isolation as Death

President Trump has undoubtedly chosen the U.S. military base at Guantánamo, Cuba not just because it has so much detention space or, in past times, was used to detain Haitian and other immigrants, but at least in part because the prison there that held so many tortured prisoners from this country’s war on terror is well known to rights groups and the general public as a nightmarish facility. A 2014 Senate report, along with numerous investigations by human rights groups, found that terror suspects, including in some cases boys, at that base had often been denied due process, detained indefinitely without charge, and subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment.

It’s a fact that people do poorly living in conditions of isolation from the rest of society. Our own military is a case in point. In the decades since fewer of us began to serve, thanks to the absence of a draft (even as the military budget ballooned), Americans generally know far less about what our military is like and what it does. In these same years, suicide rates among servicemembers and veterans have surpassed civilian rates, while violent crime and accidents have grown more common following post-9/11 deployments. Such problems are due, at least in part, to a culture of silence and isolation among military families, as well as a lack of access to military bases by journalists and the public. What we can’t know about or see, we naturally care so much less about.

Other examples of isolated populations, ranging from those in nursing homes during the Covid-19 pandemic (where there were staggering death rates) to closed mental institutions, remind us that isolation begets a lack of public accountability, indifference, and greater human pain.

Of course, the federal government has also had a deadly history of isolating people for national security reasons—from Indian reservations to the internment of Japanese- and German-Americans on military installations during World War II. Things have never ended well for such groups.

The Sound of Silence

As our country’s next wave of abuse toward supposedly dangerous “others” begins, it’s possible to pay attention. Yet when I go out into my community and speak with neighbors, other parents, friends, and acquaintances, I’m reminded of how easy it is to do nothing in the face of what’s happening around us. When I urge people to write their representatives about the treatment of immigrants, they all too often look away and don’t respond, or say they’re afraid of violent retribution if they post a yard sign on their lawns about how “everyone is welcome here.” And I can’t blame them. After all, you bring kids into this world and your first loyalty is to their safety. By the same token, ignoring signals of growing authoritarianism in the interest of peace and continuity has its obvious problems.

In my area, populated by many federal employees recently ordered to return to full-time in-person work, daily life will soon be overflowing (with little room for anything else). Residents will commute two-plus hours each way to crowded office buildings in D.C. so that voters in red states can be happy. Possibly the only ones among us who will have no choice but to pay attention to what happens in their own backyards are those who have already lost their jobs; activists at local NGOs serving immigrants and other vulnerable groups; and schoolchildren who, by necessity, see the horrors of this administration through the eyes of their vulnerable friends and parents.

For us adults, especially parents occupied with the care of our children, I’m reminded of how easy it is to ignore or forget what happens right in our own backyards. Recently, I read a New York Times article about a house in Poland on the edge of what used to be the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz, where its wartime commandant once lived. It overlooks a former gallows and the gas chambers where more than a million civilians were murdered, even as many Poles then carried on with their daily lives. A widow who brought up two kids there in the post-war years called the house “a great place to raise children.”

I wish I could say that history has taught Americans about the human costs of war and the dangers of indifference to it. Yet, around here at least, as Donald Trump and his administration scapegoat immigrants to distract from the impunity of their own actions (particularly those of Elon Musk, perhaps the most prominent immigrant ever to work here “without a legal basis to remain in the United States”), the silence is deafening. It seems to matter not at all that the infamous all-American prison in Cuba from this country’s grim war on terror has now become the “homeland” for a new nightmare (and a half).

By Peter Bloom/Common Dreams

U.S. President Donald Trump's latest proposal concerning the future of Gaza has sent shockwaves throughout the international community. The plan, which envisions the mass displacement of Palestinians to make way for large-scale real estate development, has been described by many as a modern form of ethnic cleansing. However, beyond its immediate human rights implications, the proposal reflects a broader and increasingly pervasive trend: the privatization of colonialism. This emerging form of power, which fuses state-backed military interventions with corporate real estate ambitions, is not only reshaping geopolitics but also reinforcing patterns of displacement and profit-driven development that have long characterized capitalism.

In many ways, Trump's proposal is the most explicit articulation of an idea that has been growing within imperialist frameworks: that land is a commodity to be developed, often at the expense of the people who live there. This real estate-driven colonialism extends beyond Gaza, manifesting in urban gentrification, resource-driven land grabs, and international economic policies that prioritize profit over people. Trump, in positioning himself as both a political leader and a real estate mogul, offers a disturbing vision of the future in which state power is wielded to clear land for private enterprise.

Privatizing Occupation: Trump's Gaza Plan and the Business of Displacement

Trump's proposal for Gaza presents itself as a peace plan, but its underlying logic reveals an agenda that prioritizes economic opportunity for private developers over the well-being of Palestinians. According to reports, Trump envisions a future in which Gaza is transformed into a lucrative Mediterranean real estate hub, with its war-ravaged infrastructure replaced by hotels, casinos, and commercial developments. The prerequisite for this transformation? The mass displacement of the approximately 2 million Palestinians who currently live there.

The proposal suggests that Palestinians could be relocated to neighboring countries such as Jordan and Egypt, though neither of these nations has agreed to such a plan. In effect, this would mean the forced expulsion of an entire population to clear space for a new, corporate-friendly urban environment. This mirrors the logic of historical settler-colonial projects, where Indigenous populations were removed to make way for economic and territorial expansion.

Trump's plan for Gaza is not just about development; it is about a worldview in which land is valuable, but the people on it are not.

Trump's framing of the plan as an economic opportunity rather than a humanitarian crisis is key to understanding its ideological underpinnings. He clearly sees Gaza as what one commentator has called "prime real estate," describing it as "a phenomenal location. On the sea. The best weather." Such language makes it clear that he views the region not as a home for millions of people, but as an underutilized economic asset.

Moreover, the proposal fits into a larger pattern within Trump's worldview, in which peace and stability are linked to business development rather than justice or self-determination. The idea that economic investment can resolve deep-rooted political conflicts is a hallmark of neoliberal thinking, but in this case, it is being used as a smokescreen for a violent process of expulsion and reconstruction. In short, Trump's vision for Gaza is one in which real estate developers, backed by the force of the U.S. government, reap enormous profits from the destruction and displacement of an entire people.

Privately Developing the World

Trump's approach to Gaza is not an anomaly; it is emblematic of a broader trend in which colonial ambitions are increasingly expressed through private development. This is particularly evident in Trump's own history as a real estate developer and businessman, a background that deeply informs his approach to politics. Throughout his career, Trump has pursued massive redevelopment projects that often involved displacing existing communities in favor of high-end properties. Whether in New York, Atlantic City, or Florida, his business model has been one of aggressive gentrification, and his policies as president reflect this same mindset on a global scale.

This kind of real estate-driven imperialism has precedent. Historical colonial enterprises often functioned as public-private partnerships, where European powers worked alongside private companies to extract wealth from colonized lands. The British East India Company, for example, was both a corporate and colonial entity, using military force to secure economic dominance. Today, a similar dynamic is emerging, albeit in a more modern form. Instead of explicit colonial rule, nations exert influence through economic policies, real estate development, and financial speculation.

Trump's vision for Gaza exemplifies this shift. His proposal is not framed in terms of direct military occupation, but rather in terms of economic opportunity. In this sense, it represents an updated form of colonialism as led by an imperialist "developer in chief." One that eschews traditional mechanisms of control in favor of the logic of private investment. This shift has significant implications for how global conflicts are managed and resolved. Increasingly, wars and crises are being viewed not as humanitarian emergencies, but as business opportunities. Here the "temporary" displacement of Palestinians is being done in the name of making it the "the Riviera of the Middle East".

Profitable Properties, Expendable Populations

Trump's plan for Gaza is not just about development; it is about a worldview in which land is valuable, but the people on it are not. This is a direct extension of the logic of capitalism, which prioritizes profit over people and often sees human communities as obstacles to economic growth.

In this emerging paradigm, the world is increasingly seen as a series of underdeveloped properties waiting to be monetized. Whether in Gaza, Haiti, Sudan, or urban neighborhoods across major cities in the Global North and South, communities are being displaced under the guise of economic revitalization. The logic is simple: If a population is not financially profitable, it can be removed and replaced with one that is. This perspective transforms entire societies into mere real estate assets, and in doing so, it redefines the meaning of sovereignty, citizenship, and human rights.

Ultimately, Trump's Gaza plan is a warning: If we do not challenge the privatization of colonialism now, we will see this model replicated elsewhere.

This process is not just gentrification in the traditional sense but a form of colonial gentrification—one that operates at a global scale and fuses private development with state-backed displacement. Unlike typical urban gentrification, which displaces lower-income communities within a city, colonial gentrification is an extension of historic imperialism, where entire nations and Indigenous lands are restructured to serve the economic interests of external elites. It is a process in which the destruction of communities—whether through war, economic crisis, or environmental devastation—creates new financial opportunities for corporate actors and ruling-class investors. It does not merely "upgrade" an area for wealthier residents; it systematically removes and replaces populations that have already been subjected to colonial violence and economic marginalization. The same Palestinians whose dispossession began with Zionist settlement in the 20th century are now facing an escalated form of removal under the banner of capitalist redevelopment.

However, it is not just the economic dimension that makes this model so dangerous—it is also the political incentives that come with it. Figures like Trump and other far-right populists have increasingly politically profited from making certain populations expendable. By framing marginalized communities—whether refugees, the poor, Indigenous peoples, or racialized groups—as obstacles to national progress or economic revitalization, these leaders channel popular discontent into reactionary and xenophobic movements. This tactic diverts working-class anger away from the real sources of economic inequality—corporate greed, wealth extraction, and financial speculation—and redirects it toward vulnerable populations. At the same time, the same elites pushing these narratives are also economically profiting from this manufactured expendability, using state power to clear land, remove protections, and privatize resources under the guise of "security" or "development."

In Gaza, the historical injustices of dispossession and occupation have already left the Palestinian people in a precarious position. Trump's plan, far from being an isolated event, is simply the latest manifestation of a global pattern in which communities rendered vulnerable by centuries of exploitation are continually pushed aside in favor of profit-driven redevelopment. This is not just about turning land into a commodity; it is about reinforcing a hierarchy in which certain populations are deemed disposable while others are prioritized as the rightful beneficiaries of development.

The Progressive Struggle Against Global Gentrification

The fight against Trump's Gaza plan is about resisting an entire worldview in which land is nothing more than a commodity to be bought, sold, and developed for profit. The struggles in Palestine are deeply connected to broader struggles against gentrification and displacement across the world. Communities everywhere are being pushed out to make way for wealthier and more politically connected interests. In each case, state power is weaponized through both the police, private security firms, or the military to facilitate the removal of marginalized people, reinforcing systems of inequality while presenting these transformations as "progress" or "revitalization."

To combat this, we need a global movement that recognizes the link between colonialism, capitalism, and displacement. This means fighting not just for the right of Palestinians to remain in their homeland, but for the right of all people to stay in the communities they call home. It requires resisting policies that prioritize profit over people, exposing the ways in which development projects serve elite interests, and building systems that value human lives over real estate speculation. The forces pushing for displacement—whether through military occupation, corporate-led gentrification, or neoliberal economic restructuring—are deeply interconnected, which means resistance must be interconnected as well.

Palestinians, despite facing overwhelming military, political, and economic pressure, are already resisting this plan. Grassroots organizations, activists, and everyday people in Gaza and the broader Palestinian diaspora have long been engaged in a struggle to defend their land, preserve their culture, and assert their right to self-determination.

Ultimately, Trump's Gaza plan is a warning: If we do not challenge the privatization of colonialism now, we will see this model replicated elsewhere. But it is also an opportunity—an opportunity to build new coalitions, new strategies, and new visions for a world in which people, not profits, come first. The struggle against displacement in Palestine must be linked to struggles everywhere, forging a movement that refuses to accept a world in which entire communities are deemed expendable for the sake of corporate and political gain.

By Phil Wilson/Common Dreams

If I have to pick only one from the list of nepotistic freaks, ghouls, B-list celebs, lost souls, Hitlerian zealots, and bunglers that will comprise U.S. President Donald Trump's inner circle of appointees, satellite charlatans, and court jesters, I am going to go with the one with the highest body count. There are plenty of zombies in Trump's starting lineup that would give you goosebumps—people who would cause you to choke on a sip of coffee and double check the pistol under your suit jacket if you met them in a diner to talk about internment camps and environmental deregulation. Picking the most terrible of these dregs is no easy task.

We have a serial pet murderer, a dumpy bald version of Reinhard Heydrich, and a bevy of cheerleaders for ecocide. Among Trump's cabinet picks there is a guy with a fetish for bear meat and whale carcasses and a viable plan to bring back smallpox and polio, but it takes more than a nostalgic and wistful longing for diseases of long ago to excite me. There is a certain irony to choose the most upright, clean-cut, impressively credentialed, and soft spoken of this hall of Hell hounds to be my best of the worst. Few things inspire cold sweat beads of fear like a murderer masquerading as a nice guy. Think of Ted Bundy as a Trump appointee.

I have to select Jay Bhattacharya (Trump's nominee to take over Francis Collins' former niche as director of The National Institutes of Health) as my absolute favorite monster from among the whole entourage of moral mutants and groveling sycophants. Bhattacharya would not raise your suspicions if he knocked on your door to deliver pamphlets—I would happily take a copy of The Watchtower and Awake from this reassuring man. He would bring a glow of satisfaction to most parents if their daughter brought him home. Hell, he even has ardent fans on the so-called left—the Tucker Carlson fan club comprised of Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, and Matt Taibbi. You can toss Russell Brand in there too. In a game of free association, we casually link Bhattacharya with the issue of free speech—recall that Twitter once censored this honest doctor. Jacobin, in 2020, did a softball interview with one of Bhattacharya's ideological partners, Martin Kulldorff. On the left we sometimes worry more about a killer's rights to free speech than we do about his raised dagger.

Bhattacharya was never about free speech, he was about giving a thunderous voice to the corporate aspiration to kill you for profit.

Free speech has been a distracting shibboleth for many sincere people, even though free speech has little meaning in a media system dominated by cash. The narrative promoted by both fascists and assorted enablers holds that Bhattacharya challenged the powerful forces of the “deep state” and was censored for his courage.

You might recall that the Stanford Professor of medicine coauthored the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) along with Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard. The rightwing Covid-19 gambit enjoyed unlimited oil industry funding and a mandate to assemble tenured prostitutes from academia to bamboozle the public. Jeffrey Tucker of the American Institute for Economic Research—a Koch Network outpost in Great Barrington, Massachusetts with a plump endowment from stock trading—must have had great confidence in the public tendency to skip the fine print. Leading up to, and following the pandemic, Bhattacharya has held fellowships and professional associations with The Hoover Institute, The Epoch Times, Hillsdale College, and The Brownstone Institute. The Brownstone is an Astroturfed organization with a Brooklyn visual motif and an Austin, Texas mailing address.

This Great Barrington Declaration spinoff—yet another brain child of the restlessly promiscuous, Koch affiliated, Jeffrey Tucker—specializes in Covid-19 minimizing, and anti-vax propaganda while dabbling in climate change denial. Walker Bragman and Alex Kotch revealed that the Brownstone is largely funded by dark money. To appreciate Bhattacharya’s mastery of absurdity, consider his statement in this 2022 interview posted at The Hoover Institute's Website:

It's a disaster that it's become a partisan thing. Public health, when it is partisan, is a failed public health.

If there is one essential talent that a fascist henchman needs, it is an utter immunity to self scrutiny, irony, and hypocrisy. I recall that Rudolf Hoss—the infamous commandant at Auschwitz—remarked in his dutifully composed autobiography (requisitioned by his British Jailers, postwar, prior to hanging), that his administration succeeded (I am paraphrasing) due to the cooperation of staff and prisoners alike. He could not wrap his head around the concept of victims and perpetrators having different agendas. They all worked together in a common purpose in Hoss' broken brain. Likewise, Bhattacharya has a Hoss-like inability to imagine that his narrative might be transparently nonsensical—how can a man affiliated with nearly every institution in the Koch Network not be self conscious when complaining of partisan medical narratives?

Bhattacharya's GBD is little more than libertarian rhetoric shaped to the contours of public health. Libertarian public health is a flagrant oxymoron—the task that Bhattacharya will be handed in a fascist oligarchy will be one that he has already done quite brilliantly—get the fuck out of the way and pretend that the mountain of bodies is an offering to the god of freedom.

Libertarian metaphor is wonderfully adaptable, like an elastic pair of stretch pants—one size fits all. Inaction is always in the service of human well-being. The climate regulates itself—"drill baby, drill." Guns need no regulations either, the "good guy with a gun" provides a natural balance. Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff figured out the libertarian essence of the Covid-19 story—the pandemic would fizzle out via the designs of nature (herd immunity!). The mandate for the government public health agencies was to use magic and disappear. And that is what Bhattacharya will do, make healthcare as ephemeral as a slight-of-hand handkerchief. His role is one of absence, abdication, retreat—but ultimately one of corporate fidelity, privatization, and the empowering of insurance companies and other profit-seeking medical companies to feed upon a sickly public.

Herd immunity was the whole tale in the GBD—the entire document can be read by a second grader in 20 seconds, but I can condense it into a three second sentence: Let everyone walk into the pandemic like it was a fourth of July stroll in the park, and, bingo—herd immunity!

There was a tiny bit about "focused protection" for the old and the sick. There was even a suggestion that old folks ought to have their groceries delivered, but not a whisper about who would pay for it. Of course we all know that some 40% of U.S. residents are afflicted with obesity, an enormous risk factor for Covid-19 mortality. We might add in all the smokers, lead- and mercury-poisoned masses, and the generally compromised health of a nation long on high fructose corn syrup and short on medical coverage. What you won't find in the GBD is a word about contact tracing, isolation, support for workers, mask wearing, and equipment for afflicted individuals—you know, the stuff that South Korea did to reduce Covid-19 harms by a factor of five compared to the U.S. Bizarrely, Bhattacharya belatedly renounced “herd immunity” in a Salon interview. WTF? It was all about focused protection he explained.

The deep state censored Bhattacharya, the truth teller, and now he will lead the very agency that suppressed him. The truth is a little more nuanced. Bhattacharya and his fellow medically credentialed whores had a bigger platform than former Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci ever had. With Trump's appointment of Scott Atlas to his Covid-19 Task Force, the GBD nearly became the de facto inspiration for U.S. policy.

According to The Lancet, some 40% of US Covid-19 deaths were preventable—about a half a million deaths could be loosely traced to public recalcitrance regarding pandemic protocol. How many of these victims can be directly traced to the influence of Bhattacharya and the GBD? I can't venture an exact figure, but if you line up all the wicked, unqualified, strange, and misshapen beings who will guide Trump's administration into the stormy seas of fascism, not a single one—not Kash Patel, RFK Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, Mike Huckabee, Kari Lake, Jared Kushner, Tulsi Gabbard, or anyone else can be linked to the incalculable measures of suffering that Jay Bhattacharya shepherded into history.

This is how Benjamin Mateus, writing for the World Socialist Web Site described the GBD:

The AIER, a libertarian think-tank, which posits as their aim “a society based on property rights and open markets,” is engaged in a highly reactionary, anti-working-class, and anti-socialist enterprise. The declaration has been partly funded by the right-wing billionaire, Charles Koch, who hosted a private soiree of scientists, economists, and journalists to provide the homicidal declaration a modicum of respectability and formulate herd immunity as a necessary global policy in response to the pandemic.

Derrick Z. Jackson described the GBD as a plan for "herding people to slaughter." If any of you take issue with my favoring Jay Bhattacharya as Trump's most evil selection, when did Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, or Tulsi Gabbard ever herd people to slaughter?

I am not denying that there are other abominable sociopaths who will be vying for crumbs at the master's table. Lee Zeldin and Doug Burgum as heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and Secretary of the Interior respectively, might someday cause more deaths than the piddling few hundred thousand that I have speculatively traced to Bhattacharya. In fact, the wholesale, escalating assassination of the natural world will act in tandem with our disassembled, privatized medical system. You will get to live downstream from an industrial pig slaughterhouse, with no medical insurance, and no funding for public health.

Zeldin, Burgum, and Bhattacharya might be thought of as crossing guards for the grim reaper, or maybe you might prefer to picture them as scare crows, mannequins, or plastic fuck dolls—things that have no inner lives and serve as extensions of our fantasies.

Bhattacharya was never about free speech, he was about giving a thunderous voice to the corporate aspiration to kill you for profit. Bhattacharya whined about school closings but never acknowledged the 6 million U.S. children now potentially ruined by long Covid.

As you read about the fires turning LA into an ash heap, and Trump's plans to drill and frack until the entire globe achieves end-Permian parity, be aware that the styrofoam inhabitants of Trump's administration will do no more to alleviate your misery than so many cardboard boxes sitting in the storage rooms of Amazon. If we want relief we'll have to plan unprecedented acts of resistance.

One last thought—look at the Rorschach blot below and ask yourself...

Is this an image that summons worries about free speech denied, or does this picture remind you that the oil industry owns our future?

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, went on Fox News on Sunday morning to lay out the case for the Democratic ticket and attack Republicans' economic policies.

In a 15-minute interview with Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream, Walz pushed back on many right-wing talking points and drew a sharp distinction between the two parties economic leadership. He celebrated the work of U.S. Vice President Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, and attacked former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee.

"We saw a blockbuster jobs report this week," Walz said. "We saw interest rates come down, and we've also seen that Vice President Harris is laying out a middle-class agenda."

"I was in Ohio yesterday, in Cleveland, in Cincinnati, and talking about this," he added. "Folks in Ohio know that Donald Trump's policies led to 180,000 manufacturing jobs leaving."

Walz mentioned the high unemployment rates that the U.S. faced when Trump left office, though those were affected by the pandemic, as well as Harris' intention to address price gouging by corporations, a popular initiative.

Walz drew particular attention to Trump and Harris' tax plans.

"I think the fundamental difference here is, Donald Trump kept his promise. He cut taxes for the wealthiest," Walz said, before explaining that Harris, on the other hand, was "asking those at the top to pay their fair share" so as to pay for programs such as the child tax credit.

Bream tried to corner Walz on abortion and immigration but the governor maintained his composure, seeming to be more poised than he had been during the vice presidential debate on Tuesday night. He called Bream's inquiries into whether there would limits to late-term abortions a "distraction."

Bream also grilled Walz on some personal statements that have been called into question. Seeming to want to draw a contrast with Trump, Walz said "I will own up when I misspeak."

This was Walz' first appearance on a Sunday morning talk show since he was named Harris' running mate. Both Dana Bash and Jake Tapper of CNN have recently commented on Harris and Walz' absence from television programs, suggesting they should make more appearances.

Germany's far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is projected to win in Sunday's statewide elections in a political earthquake—the first time a far-right party has won an election in Germany since the 1930s Nazi-era.

According to exit polls, AfD, founded in 2013 with an anti-migration and eurosceptic platform, won the most votes in the eastern state of Thuringia and is tied for first in the state of Saxony.

Today's election results are seen as a barometer of public sentiment toward German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's coalition ahead of Germany's next national election in a little over a year.

"This is a historic success for us," said national co-leader of the AfD Alice Weidel.

The Guardian reports:

"The anti-migration, anti-Islam AfD spent the last week of its campaign hammering home the message that the government is “failing” its citizens while harnessing shock and outrage over the deadly mass stabbing in the western city of Solingen allegedly by a Syrian rejected asylum seeker."

"The party, whose Saxony and Thuringia chapters security authorities have classed as rightwing extremist, could come out on top in both regions, as well as in Brandenburg, the rural state surrounding Berlin which will vote on 22 September, polls show."

U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, a longtime congressman from New Jersey and unflinching critic of former President Donald Trump, died at 87 years old on Wednesday, his family announced.

Pascrell (D-N.J.), a former public school teacher, state assemblyman, and mayor of Paterson, was first elected to Congress in 1996 and served 14 terms.

His death led to an outpouring of tributes from dignitaries in New Jersey and across the country. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called him "a constant fighter for what is right and just."

Pascrell, not one to hold back for fear of impropriety, was known for memorable one-liners. After he arrived in Washington, he put a bumper sticker on his door that said "NAFTA is Shafta," expressing his opposition to free trade agreements.

"The joy of Bill Pascrell is you never walked away from Bill Pascrell saying he was undecided," Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), his colleague on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, said in 2020.

As he advanced in age, Pascrell became something of an ally to younger colleagues, endorsing a Green New Deal, for example. In 2019, he tweeted a satirical article from The Onion titled "82-Year-Old New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell Quietly Asks Ilhan Omar If He Can Be Part Of The Squad."

"Well. How 'bout it he jokingly asked the the small, left-wing band of lawmakers, getting an immediate "You're in, Bill Pascrell!" in response from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Mostly, Pascrell was known in his later years for his no-holds-barred criticism of Trump—whose tax returns he pursued vigorously, in his role on the Ways and Means Committee—and other Republicans, and the comedy he produced at their expense.

Pascrell took seeming delight in Trump's recent felony conviction in the New York hush money trial.

A few days earlier, Pascrell took aim at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who's been mired in controversy for unreported gifts he accepted from Republican megadonors in the past. Pascrell posted an artistic rendering, based on a real scene from five years ago, of Thomas smoking a cigar while he sits beside megadonor Harlan Crow, his main benefactor, and right-wing legal influencer Leonard Leo, among others.

Pascrell communicated with a directness that many Democratic officeholders are reluctant to employ, drawing praise—and smiles—from left-leaning followers of his social media account.

In 2018, when Trump remarked that immigrants were coming to the U.S. from "shithole" countries, Pascrell invoked a racist character from the 1970s sitcom All in the Family.

Pascrell, who was an advocate for veterans who'd suffered brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, objected to Trump's disrespect for those who'd given their lives for the country.

During the pandemic, Pascrell warned that Trump's approach to dealing with Covid-19 could be deadly for Americans.

Trump's attorney general, William "Bill" Barr, was a frequent target of Pascrell's wrath: The congressman called him the "worst most corrupt despicable attorney general in U.S. history." So when Barr made claims about the Kenosha, Wisconsin, riots of 2020, Pascrell proved skeptical.

In a 2020 debate, when Trump interrupted President Joe Biden while the then-Democratic nominee spoke about the military service of his son Beau Biden, who'd died of cancer five years earlier, Pascrell was unimpressed.

Pascrell was an indefatigable critic of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, whom he said had tried to sabotage—that is, slow down—the work of the U.S. Postal Service as a way of helping Trump's elections chances in 2020. (Most mail-in votes were for Democrats.) Pascrell blamed not just DeJoy but also the service's Board of Governors who had appointed the Republican businessman as their head.

Pascrell kept beating the drum against DeJoy, unsuccessfully, until he died. (DeJoy is still the postmaster general.) The congressman also regularly used social media as a platform to argue that Republicans posed a threat to democracy.

Pascrell, who was the second-oldest member of the House, will likely be replaced by another Democrat, as his district leans solidly blue.

A second Trump administration would cripple the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect the public from toxic "forever chemicals," The Guardian reported Sunday, citing experts inside and outside the agency.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of about 16,000 synthetic compounds that break down only very slowly, have been linked to a wide array of serious medical conditions including cancer. The EPA under the Biden administration has instituted limits on PFAS levels in drinking water and other PFAS regulations that industry groups oppose.

Experts warn that allies of Republican nominee Donald Trump aim not just to roll back Biden-era regulations but fundamentally reshape the agency.

"Basically the entire infrastructure of how [the] EPA considers science and develops rules is very much under attack," Erik Olson, legislative director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, told The Guardian.

An unnamed EPA employee told the newspaper that a second Trump administration would seek to disempower agency experts and let political appointees make key regulatory decisions.

"They want a small group of 20 people making the rules, and the rest of the agency can go to hell as far as they care," said the EPA employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Project 2025, a roadmap for Republican governance produced by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, proposes deregulation of PFAS, narrowing the definition of the class of toxic compounds, and elimination of the EPA office that assesses chemicals' toxicity.

Project 2025, to the extent that it's known about, has proven unpopular with the American public, and Trump has tried to distance himself from the plan, but has close links to its authors, at least 140 of whom worked in the former president's administration.

Project 2025's proposals on forever chemicals are aligned with the aims of the American Chemistry Council, the fourth largest lobbying group in the country. During his first term, Trump appointed ACC leaders to key positions in the EPA, and critics of the former president argue that his second administration would be even more unabashedly pro-industry.

"The Trump administration learned some lessons and would be much more surgical and effective at affixation next time," the NRDC's Olson said.

The unnamed EPA employee said a Trump victory might even mean the abolishment of the EPA's entire Office of Research and Development.

ACC members 3M and DuPont developed PFAS in the mid-20th century and used them in a wide range of products, even with knowledge of their toxicity and the way that the accumulate in the human body, according to a series of exposés in recent years, notably by the journalist Sharon Lerner in her work at ProPublica and The Intercept. A recent article of Lerner's in The New Yorker showed that 3M long concealed the dangers of PFAS.

Labor advocates decried Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Starbucks in a labor dispute between the international coffee giant and seven of its employees who were terminated for leading a unionization campaign at their Memphis store.

In an 8-1 decision—with liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting—the justices in Starbucks v. McKinney made it more difficult for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to temporarily halt alleged unfair labor practices. The court rejected a rule invoked by some courts to protect workers in favor of a higher standard supported by Starbucks.

"Companies that engage in union-busting will applaud this ruling."

Far-right Justice Clarence Thomas, who penned the court's majority opinion, asserted that the NLRB-backed standard made it too easy for the federal government to prevail in labor disputes with businesses.

"In fact," he wrote, "it is hard to imagine how the board could lose under the reasonable-cause test if courts deferentially ask only whether the board offered a minimally plausible legal theory, while ignoring conflicting law or facts."

Labor defenders, however, condemned the ruling.

"Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law," Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, the union representing Starbucks employees, said in a statement.

"That makes today's ruling by the Supreme Court particularly egregious," Fox added. "It underscores how the economy is rigged against working people all the way up to the Supreme Court."

Labor journalist Steven Greenhouse said on social media that "companies that engage in union-busting will applaud this ruling."

Revolving Door Project found that at least three groups tied to anti-union figures Charles Koch, a billionaire, and Leonard Leo, a right-wing legal activist, filed amicus briefs in support of Starbucks' position.

At the center of the case are the so-called "Memphis Seven" employees who worked at Starbucks' Poplar and Highland location in the Tennessee city before they were fired in February 2022 during the early months of what has become a nationwide labor organization wave in which workers at hundreds of locations have voted to unionize.

In August 2022, a federal judge ordered Starbucks to reinstate the fired workers.

"Today's SCOTUS ruling in favor of Starbucks is tough news, but it won't stop us," the advocacy group Jobs With Justice said in response to the decision. "We stand with the Memphis Seven and all workers fighting for fair treatment. We must keep pushing for justice and stronger protections!"

Oddball presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was eliminated from contention for the oddball Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination during the party’s national convention Sunday afternoon in Washington. Kennedy was eliminated in the first round of voting after receiving support from 19 delegates, or just 2.07% of delegates.

Earlier, Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle had ruled that former president Donald J. Trump was not even qualified to be considered for nomination because he did not submit the proper nominating papers. Trump, however, received six write-in votes -- defeating Stormy Daniels, Denali the Cat, and Sean Ono Lennon.

Donald Trump was booed loudly and repeatedly during his speech to the Libertarians Saturday night as he asked for their support.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told the party's delegates to unite with him to beat Democrat Joe Biden.

"We must work together," he said. "Combine with us. You have to combine with us."

The crowd responded to Trump's plea with shouts of “Bullsh---” and “F--- you!"

As global billionaires see their wealth soar to record heights, one Vietnamese real estate tycoon was sentenced to death on Thursday in the Southeast Asian nation's largest-ever financial fraud case, part of a government crackdown on corruption.

Tru'o'ng Mỹ Lan, founder of the real estate developer Vạn Thịnh Phát Group, was arrested in October 2022 for illegally controlling and embezzling money from Saigon Commercial Bank (SCB) for a decade after a 2011 merger she arranged.

"Lan embezzled $12.5 billion, but prosecutors said Thursday the total damages caused by the scam now amounted to $27 billion—a figure equivalent to 6% of the country's 2023 [gross domestic product]," according to Agence France-Presse. "The court ordered Lan, 67, to pay almost the entire damages sum in compensation."

The BCC reported that "according to prosecutors, over a period of three years from February 2019, she ordered her driver to withdraw 108 trillion Vietnamese dong, more than $4 billion in cash from the bank, and store it in her basement. That much cash, even if all of it was in Vietnam's largest denomination banknotes, would weigh two tonnes."

AFP spoke with one of the 42,000 victims of the scandal identified by authorities:

Nga, a 67-year-old Hanoi resident... told AFP Thursday that she had hoped for a life sentence for Lan so she could live to fully witness the pain her actions had caused ordinary people.

"Many people worked hard to deposit money into the bank, but now she's received the death sentence and that's it for her," said Nga, using a pseudonym to protect her identity.

"She can't see the suffering of the people."

Nga has so far been unable to retrieve the $120,000 she invested with SCB.

Human rights advocates consider Vietnam to be a global leader in death penalty sentences and executions, though data on the topic are considered state secrets, so precise figures are not known.

"From January to early October 2023, at least 189 people have been sentenced to death in Vietnam," The Vietnamese Magazine reported last year, citing state media reports. Among them, "44 were convicted of murder (23%), while the remaining 145 (77%) were involved in illegally trading or transporting narcotic substances."

Amnesty International, which opposes the death penalty in all cases, released its latest annual report on sentences and executions worldwide last May. While noting the Vietnamese government's limits on official data, the group found that in 2022, there were at least 102 sentences handed down and over 1,200 people on death row in the country.

"The death penalty in Vietnam is used to intimidate those who would break the law, while also showing the power of the ruling party," Human Rights Watch's Asia deputy director Phil Robertson toldCNN in 2022. "This is a government that chases down dissidents, runs roughshod over civil society, sentences and imprisons people after kangaroo court trials, and now we know, executes far more people than anyone else in [the region]."

"Vietnam's horrendous record of executions dwarfs that of any of its neighbors but it is not surprising that the government has systematically implemented the death penalty and kept executions out of the public eye," Robertson added.

As the BCC noted:

The habitually secretive communist authorities were uncharacteristically forthright about this case, going into minute detail for the media. They said 2,700 people were summoned to testify, while 10 state prosecutors and around 200 lawyers were involved.

The evidence was in 104 boxes weighing a total of six tonnes. Eighty-five others were tried with Tru'o'ng Mỹ Lan, who denied the charges and can appeal.

All of the defendants were found guilty. Four received life in jail. The rest were given prison terms ranging from 20 years to three years suspended.

The trials were part of the ongoing "Blazing Furnace" anti-corruption campaign spearheaded by Nguyễn Phú Trọng, secretary-general of Vietnam's Communist Party.

Multiple top officials have left office during the campaign, including Vietnamese President Võ Văn Thưởng, who resigned last month. The Communist Party did not offer details about the reason for his departure but said that "Thưởng's violations and shortcomings have caused bad public opinion, affecting the reputation of the party, the state, and him personally."

Data released by the Federal Reserve on Thursday shows the top 1% of Americans are the richest they've ever been.

The new data reveals that at the end of the fourth quarter last year they had a record $44.6 trillion in wealth. That's up from $30 trillion in 2020.

The main driver of wealth gains last year was from the stock market hitting record highs. While wages are increasing for average Americans, the top 1% is gaining wealth at a much faster pace.

The wealth of U.S. billionaires is currently at $5.5 trillion, which is up 88% since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The nation's rich accruing so much wealth in recent years has renewed calls for a wealth tax.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and others are pushing to pass the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, which would put a 2-cent tax on every dollar of wealth over $50 million. Warren referred to U.S. President Joe Biden calling for higher taxes on billionaires during his State of the Union when the bill was reintroduced earlier this month.

"As President Biden says: No one thinks it's fair that Jeff Bezos gets enough tax loopholes that he pays at a lower rate than a public school teacher," said Warren. "All my bill is asking is that when you make it big, bigger than $50 million dollars, then on that next dollar, you pitch in 2 cents, so everyone else can have a chance."

As progressives fight to pass a wealth tax at the federal level, legislators in many states are pursuing their own wealth taxes.

In reflecting on nearly 50 years of climate advocacy, former Vice President Al Gore said that he had "underestimated" the greed of the fossil fuel industry.

The remarks came in an interview published in USA Today on Sunday. When asked if he had any regrets, Gore responded that he had "put every ounce of energy" he had into climate advocacy, but added:

"I was pretty slow to recognize how important the massive funding of anti-climate messaging was going on. I underestimated the power of greed in the fossil fuel industry, the shamelessness in putting out the lies."

"They are continuing to do similar things today to try to fool people and pull the wool over people's eyes just in the name of greed," Gore continued.

"What's at stake is so incredible."

Gore, who tried to raise awareness about the climate crisis in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as 1981 and brought the issue to national attention in 2006's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, has taken a harsher tone against oil, gas, and coal companies in recent months. In August 2023, he said that the "climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis," and in September, he implored the industry to "get out of the way." In December, he lamented that the industry had "captured the COP process," referring to the appointment of the United Arab Emirates national oil company CEO Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber to preside over the United Nations' COP28 climate conference in that country.

In the USA Today interview, Gore also named the fossil fuel industry when asked about his greatest frustration.

"Well, that we haven't made more progress," Gore answered, "and that some of the fossil fuel companies have been shameless in providing, continuing to provide lavish funding for disinformation and misinformation."

"What's at stake is so incredible," he added.

However, Gore told USA Today that he tried not to focus on his anger, but instead on continuing to raise awareness about the crisis and what can be done about it. And he remained hopeful that his grandchildren would live in a world in which people had come together and acted in time.

"We've got all the solutions we need right now to cut emissions in half before the end of this decade," he said. "We've got a clear line of sight to how we can cut the other 50% of emissions by mid century."

He also encouraged more people to get involved with the climate movement.

"I would say the greatest need is for more grassroots advocates because the most persuasive advocates are those in your own community," he said.

OLIVIA ROSANE Olivia Rosane is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >