

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Remedying the financial crisis will require significant
changes to existing World Trade Organization (WTO) rules that lock in
domestically and export worldwide the extreme financial services
deregulatory agenda favored by the world's banking and insurance giants
that fostered the crisis, Public Citizen said.
"President Bush's insistence that further deregulation
and liberalization is the solution to addressing the financial crisis
spawned by radical financial services deregulation is the sort of
backwards, ideological approach that could squander the prospects that
Saturday's summit produces any remedies for the crisis," said Lori
Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division.
Calls by many other world leaders for new global
financial services regulation have been accompanied by a seeming total
lack of awareness that most of the world's countries are bound to
expansive WTO financial services deregulation requirements to stay out
of the business of regulating financial services. More than 100
countries signed the 1997 WTO Financial Services Agreement.
Despite the pervasive role of the WTO in worldwide
financial service deregulation, in the lead up to this Saturday's G-20
Global Financial Crisis Summit in Washington, D.C., the only comments
regarding adherence to global trade rules have been of the red herring
variety: panicky warnings about the perils of countries raising tariffs
to block imports in response to dire economic conditions - something no
country has proposed.
In contrast, in recent weeks, the Bush administration
and governments worldwide have taken various measures to counter the
crisis. These measures contradict the fundamental precepts of the
current globalization model - and in some cases violate the rules
implementing this model, such as those of the WTO. Plus, many of the
most basic national and international remedies now being proposed to
fix the mess and avoid future meltdowns occupy policy space that
governments ceded to the WTO a decade ago.
"Altering the WTO financial services rules is critical
for creating domestic policy space to address the crisis," Wallach
said. "However, even in the face of this crisis, the United States and
the European Union are pushing for further financial services
liberalization in the ongoing WTO Doha Round, the conclusion of which
they are now pushing as a cure to the crisis, even as they find that
flaunting the existing WTO terms is the necessary course of action."
As part of its original WTO commitments, the United
States agreed to conform a broad array of financial services -
including banking, insurance and other financials services - to comply
with WTO rules.
"Unless the radical financial services deregulation
agenda that has been aggressively promoted and entrenched by the WTO,
World Bank and International Monetary Fund is understood as a source of
the current crisis, reform proposals will not address the crisis' root
causes," Wallach said.
For more information about the WTO's role in the crisis, read our memo to reporters, Elimination of WTO's Radical Financial Service Deregulation Requirements Must Be Addressed at Nov. 15 Summit.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000The White House adviser offered "a very good definition of imperialism," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"Belligerent" was how one Democratic lawmaker described a diatribe given by top White House adviser Stephen Miller on CNN Monday evening regarding the Trump administration's right to take over Venezuela—or any other country—if doing so is in the supposed interest of the US.
To Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), however, Miller was simply providing viewers with "a very good definition of imperialism" as he described the worldview the administration is operating under as it takes control of Venezuela and eyes other countries, including Greenland, that it believes it can and should invade.
"This is what imperialism is all about," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper. "And I suspect that people all over the world are saying, ‘Wow, we’re going back to where we were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, where the big, powerful countries were exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources.'"
The senator spoke to Tapper shortly after Miller's interview, in which the news anchor asked whether President Donald Trump would support holding an election in Venezuela days after the US military bombed the country and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Miller refused to directly engage with the question, saying only that it would be "absurd and preposterous" for the US to install Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado as the leader of the country, before asking Tapper to "give [him] the floor" and allow him to explain the White House's view on foreign policy.
"The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere," said Miller. "We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries but not to us."
Instead of "demanding that elections be held" in Venezuela, he added, "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
MILLER: The US is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It's absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of… pic.twitter.com/wXK2UxnqUj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2026
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela "stole" oil from the United States. The country is believed to have the largest oil reserves in the world, and the government nationalized its petroleum industry in 1976, including projects that had been run by US-based ExxonMobil. The last privately run oil operations were nationalized in 2007 by then-President Hugo Chavez.
Miller offered one of the most explicit explanations of the White House's view yet: that "sovereign countries don’t get sovereignty if the US wants their resources," as Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) translated in a social media post.
Moulton called Miller's tirade "genuinely unhinged" and "a disturbing window into how this administration thinks about the world."
Miller's remarks followed a similarly blunt statement at a UN Security Council emergency meeting by US Ambassador Michael Waltz.
"You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States," said Waltz.
Miller's description of the White House's current view on foreign policy followed threats from Trump against countries including Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, and further comments suggested that the administration could soon move to take control of the latter country—even though it is part of the kingdom of Denmark, which along with the US is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
"Greenland should be part of the United States," said Miller. "The president has been very clear about that, that is the formal position of the US government."
Miller: “Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The United States is the power of NATO. Greenland should be part of the United States.”
“Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.” pic.twitter.com/d7i2kMXFMD
— Dori Toribio (@DoriToribio) January 5, 2026
He dismissed the idea that the takeover of Greenland, home to about 56,000 people, would involve a military operation—though Trump has said he would not rule out using force—and said that "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
The vast island is strategically located in the Arctic Circle and has largely untapped reserves of rare-earth minerals.
Danish and Greenlandic officials have condemned Trump's latest threats this week, with Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warning that, in accordance with the NATO treaty, "everything would come to an end" if the US attacks another NATO country.
“The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance—all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another," she told Danish news channel Live News on Monday.
The Danish government called an emergency meeting of its Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday to discuss "the kingdom's relationship with the United States."
On CNN, Sanders noted that as Trump sets his sights on controlling oil reserves in Venezuela and resources in Greenland, people across the president's own country are struggling under rising costs and financial insecurity.
"Maybe instead of trying to run Venezuela," said Sanders, "the president might try to do a better job running the United States of America."
"He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump."
Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of "cowardice" for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro's ouster, declaring that "we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime."
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was "complicated," adding that it was "for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken."
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that "it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal."
"It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious," Corbyn wrote. "It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high."
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States."
The UK, according to the government's foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the "work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US."
Corbyn argued that the government's approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States," Corbyn wrote. "Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law."
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," said Sen. Ed Markey.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting—which helped fund NPR, PBS, and many local public television and radio outlets—announced Monday that its board of directors has voted to dissolve the 58-year-old private nonprofit, a move one Democratic US senator blamed on Republican efforts to destroy the venerable American institution.
CPB said in a statement that Sunday's board of directors vote "follows Congress’ rescission of all of CPB’s federal funding and comes after sustained political attacks that made it impossible for CPB to continue operating as the Public Broadcasting Act intended."
Patricia Harrison, CPB's president and CEO, said Monday that "for more than half a century, CPB existed to ensure that all Americans—regardless of geography, income, or background—had access to trusted news, educational programming, and local storytelling."
"When the [Trump] administration and Congress rescinded federal funding, our board faced a profound responsibility: CPB’s final act would be to protect the integrity of the public media system and the democratic values by dissolving, rather than allowing the organization to remain defunded and vulnerable to additional attacks," Harrison added.
CPB board chair Ruby Calvert said: “What has happened to public media is devastating. After nearly six decades of innovative, educational public television and radio service, Congress eliminated all funding for CPB, leaving the board with no way to continue the organization or support the public media system that depends on it."
"Yet, even in this moment, I am convinced that public media will survive, and that a new Congress will address public media’s role in our country because it is critical to our children's education, our history, culture, and democracy to do so," Calvert added.
The dissolution of CPB won't end NPR, PBS, or other public media outlets—which are overwhelmingly funded via contributions by private donors and by viewers and listeners.
President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, and conservative advocacy groups—including the Heritage Foundation, which led work on Project 2025, the right-wing roadmap for remaking the federal government whose agenda includes stripping CPB funding—argue that NPR, PBS and other public outlets have become too "woke" and liberally "biased." In May, Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to taxpayer support for CPB-funded media.
Critics counter that Republican attacks on CPB have little to do with ensuring balanced coverage and fiscal responsibility and more to do with punishing media outlets that are critical of Trump and his policies.
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Monday.
“Today’s decision to dissolve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting marks a grave loss for the American public," Markey continued. "For generations, CPB helped ensure access to trusted news, quality children’s programming, local storytelling, and vital emergency information for millions of people in Massachusetts and across the country."
"CPB nurtured and developed our public broadcasting system, which is truly the crown jewel of America’s media mix," he added. “This fight is not over. I will continue to fight for public media and oppose authoritarian efforts to shut down dissent, threaten journalists, and undermine free speech in the United States of America.”
Free press defenders also lamented CPB's imminent dissolution, as well as consolidation in the corporate mainstream media.
"Meanwhile," said human rights attorney Qasim Rashid on Bluesky, "billionaires continue to buy up major legacy media to prevent criticism of Trump."