SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
trade
Spanish Minister Says Trump 'Is Confusing Diplomacy With Bullying' After Trade Threat
"Trump calls Spain a 'terrible partner' because it accepts neither blackmail nor threats. Because we are a sovereign, democratic country that defends multilateralism and peace."
Jul 08, 2026
US President Donald Trump's call on Wednesday to "cut off all trade with Spain" over what he said is the NATO ally's failure to pull its own weight in the alliance was shrugged off by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez as "business as usual," but a member of the leftist leader's Cabinet responded to the largely infeasible threat by declaring that her government will not succumb to bullying.
Sitting alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the alliance's summit in the Turkish capital Ankara, Trump told reporters that “Spain is a wasted cause."
"We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore, by the way,” the Republican president continued. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate. They don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits. Watch them come running back. Oh, they’ll come running back."
President Trump says he is "not happy" with NATO and demands to cut trade ties with Spain: "I don't want anything to do with Spain... cut off all trade with Spain please, including visits... watch them come running back." pic.twitter.com/3WCTAZU5mA
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 8, 2026
According to NATO's official estimates for 2025, Spain spends 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, equivalent to about $35.7 billion, the seventh-highest amount in the alliance. Five other NATO members—Belgium, Czechia, Luxembourg, North Macedonia, and Portugal—also spend 2% of their GDP on their militaries, the lowest percentage in the alliance. NATO members have agreed to meet a defense spending goal of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, while Trump has repeatedly urged alliance nations to budget 5%.
Sánchez brushed off Trump's tirade as "business as usual" while touting Spain's "excellent" trade relations with the United States and vowing to respond "with calm and patience" to the president's threat.
"When you step back a bit from these kinds of actions, what you see is that relations between the United States and Spain are very, very positive socially, culturally, economically, and politically," he said.
"Spain is a country that strives to maintain the best possible relations with all countries, especially allied countries, with whom we have very consolidated ties that have transcended the ideological orientation of the administrations that have governed Spain or the United States over the decades," Sánchez added.
Spanish Health Minister Mónica García was more blunt in her response to Trump's remarks.
"Trump calls Spain a 'terrible partner' because it accepts neither blackmail nor threats," she said on social media. "Because we are a sovereign, democratic country that defends multilateralism and peace. What's terrible is confusing diplomacy with bullying."
Experts say that while the International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants US presidents broad authority to block or limit trade with countries, they must prove that targeted nations pose an "unusual or extraordinary threat" to national or economic security, which Spain clearly does not. Furthermore, as a European Union member, any trade negotiations must be conducted via Brussels, not Madrid.
This isn't the first time that Trump has floated cutting off commercial relations with Spain. Earlier this year, he threatened a full trade embargo on Spain over its refusal to allow use of its military bases to wage the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran. Spain's rejection of Trump's call for NATO members to spend 5% of their GDPs on defense, its formal support for South Africa's Gaza genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, and its broader pro-Palestine stance have also angered the US leader.
Responding to Trump's renewed airstrikes on Iran and apparent abandonment of a frayed three-month ceasefire, Sánchez said Wednesday that "what we want is to avoid war."
"Wars are always bad news," the prime minister added, "especially for civilians, particularly children and women."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US-UK Medicine Deal Will Take 'Wrecking Ball' to NHS, Causing 229,000 Excess Deaths: Study
"We cannot afford to sit by while our NHS is picked apart by a foreign regime," said one member of Parliament.
Jul 02, 2026
One member of British Parliament called on the Labour government to defend the country's revered National Health Service "with everything we have and firmly stand up to the bully in the White House" after a study published Wednesday showed the UK-US pharmaceutical trade deal brokered last year is projected to cause 229,000 excess deaths as funding is stripped away from the NHS.
“It is a complete insult to patients who are suffering and dying on hospital trolleys and waiting months for treatment," said Helen Morgan of the Liberal Democrats Party regarding the new analysis. "We cannot afford to sit by while our NHS is picked apart by a foreign regime."
The study, conducted by researchers at the University of York, the University of Liverpool, and Christchurch Hospital in New Zealand and published in the British Medical Journal, found that £44.7 billion ($59.5 billion) will have to be diverted from health services by 2036 in order to pay for new medications under the deal.
The agreement was reached last December, with recently resigned Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government agreeing to pay 25% more for new US medications over the next decade. The NHS will double the percentage of gross domestic product that it allocates for pharmaceuticals, from 0.3% to 0.6%, with the spending increasing from 10% to 12% of the universal healthcare system's budget.
In exchange, the Trump administration agreed not to impose tariffs of up to 100% that he had threatened for UK medicines being imported to the US.
Science Minister Patrick Vallance insisted in April that the deal would give NHS patients access to "life-changing new medicines that they previously would have been denied" while boosting the UK's "life sciences sector" by avoiding Trump's tariffs.
"Scandalously, this backroom deal was not subject to any scrutiny in Parliament before being rushed through—and the government refuses to say what impact it will have on the NHS."
But Sir Ciarán Devane, chief executive of the NHS Alliance, told The Guardian that the study raised "serious questions" about whether Britons will truly benefit from the agreement.
"If billions of pounds are diverted away from frontline care to meet higher medicines costs, the consequences for prevention, community services, and the treatment of long-term conditions could be profound," said Devane. "The government must urgently publish the full impact assessment and ensure there is appropriate scrutiny of the deal if it could have such far-reaching implications for population health.”
The projected avoidable death toll in the study far exceeds that which the UK saw during the coronavirus pandemic, when 137,000 excess deaths were recorded between March 2020-June 2022.
"If the indirect effect on adult social care is also included, the increase in excess deaths is even greater (291,000),” reads the study.
The greatest number of excess deaths is projected to occur in patients suffering from cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal issues as well as cancer.
Patients with “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems" will also face "broader effects on quality of life," the research states.
The government has assured the public that "frontline services" will be protected, notes the report, but "the NHS will need to fund this deal from allocations made six months before the deal was agreed. The evidence suggests that if additional public expenditure was available, it could be more effectively deployed within the NHS itself."
The research projected that the greatest number of deaths would occur in cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cancer patients.
It added that there will also be broader harm caused to quality of life for patients in those sectors as well as “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems”.
Tim Bierley, a campaigner with the UK-based group Global Justice Now, said that the report "adds to the overwhelming evidence that the Trump medicines deal risks taking a wrecking ball to our health and our economy."
"Billions that could be spent on recruiting more NHS staff, cutting [general practitioner] waiting times, or improving our hospital care are set to be siphoned off by corporate giants in the pharma industry," said Bierley, whose group has joined the campaign Just Treatment in filing a legal challenge against the deal. "Scandalously, this backroom deal was not subject to any scrutiny in Parliament before being rushed through—and the government refuses to say what impact it will have on the NHS."
"The next prime minister," said Bierley, "must change direction, stand up for our NHS, and unpick the mess left by their predecessors.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shame!': Germany, Italy Block Effort to Suspend EU-Israel Trade Pact Over Gaza Genocide, West Bank Attacks
“The European Union can no longer remain on the sidelines,” said three foreign ministers who called for a suspension of the deal.
Apr 21, 2026
Calls have steadily intensified in recent weeks for the European Union to suspend a trade agreement with Israel as the country's right-wing government has ignored growing condemnation over its anti-Palestinian policies and its assaults on Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon—but on Tuesday, German and Italian officials blocked an effort to pause the trade deal, with Germany's foreign minister saying the move would be "inappropriate."
The foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, suggested that world governments have not yet appealed enough to Israel in an attempt to stop it from attacking civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Gaza; backing settlers who wage violence on Palestinians as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government seeks to illegally annex the territory; and passing a death penalty law that makes death by hanging the default punishment for Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis.
“We have to talk with Israel about the critical issues,” Wadephul said at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, which was called by his counterparts from Ireland, Slovenia, and Spain. “That has to be done in a critical, constructive dialogue with Israel.”
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani added that "no decision will be taken today" and said that "other possible initiatives will be discussed at the next ministerial meeting on May 11."
Critics, however, blasted the decision.
Erika Guevara-Rosas, a senior director for Amnesty International, called the move by Italy and Germany "a moral failure" that "illustrates brazen contempt for civilian lives" in Gaza, the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), and in Lebanon.
Failure to act in the face of Israel's repeated and ongoing atrocities, said Guevara-Rosas, "will be remembered as another shameful chapter in one of the most disgraceful moments in the EU’s history."
The Irish, Spanish, and Slovenian officials wrote to EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas last week, saying that Israel has breached Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which stipulates that "relations between the parties, as well as all the provisions of the agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles."
A European Commission review last year found "indications" that Israel is breaching its human rights obligations under the 1995 agreement.
The death penalty law, said the foreign ministers, is a "grave violation of fundamental human rights," while settlers and Israel Defense Forces soldiers act "with absolute impunity" in the West Bank.
“The European Union can no longer remain on the sidelines,” they said.
Ahead of Tuesday's meeting in Luxembourg, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares called on every European country "to uphold what the International Court of Justice and the UN say on human rights and the defense of international law" and that failing to do so regarding Israel "would be a defeat for the European Union."
Irish Foreign Minister Helen McEntee called on the EU to "move in unison" to pressure Israel to meet its human rights obligations. Suspending the trade agreement requires unanimous support from the bloc's 27 member countries.
McEntee said that she was urging "all of our colleagues today to support our call for the suspension of the overall agreement but, at the very least, if we can't reach that full agreement, that we would have suspension of the overall trade elements of it."
"Where the EU moves together, we have a greater impact."
📽️Watch Minister @HMcEntee's remarks ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg. pic.twitter.com/c5w9S4qdQp
— Ireland In The EU (@IrelandInEU) April 21, 2026
But Germany and Italy's refusal to back the suspension of the agreement, said Irish author Andrew Madden, suggested "a preference for the ongoing slaughter of innocent people" over angering Israel.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As US Blockades Strait of Hormuz, Iran Military Warns of Weapons 'Enemy Has No Idea About'
"We will unveil warfare methods that the enemy will have little ability to counter," said the IRGC spokesperson.
Apr 13, 2026
As the US military on Monday began a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after the Trump administration's failed talks with the Iranian government, a spokesperson for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a warning to the United States.
"If the war continues, we will unveil capacities that the enemy has no idea about," said Sardar Mohibi, according to the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency. "We will unveil warfare methods that the enemy will have little ability to counter."
As Iran's Press TV reported, Iranian Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaqari also commented on the blockade, which began at 10:00 am Eastern time, stressing that "enemy-affiliated vessels do not and will not have the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz."
"Other vessels will be allowed to transit the strait in compliance with the regulations of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Zolfaqari said. "If the security of ports of the Islamic Republic of Iran is threatened, no port in the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Oman will remain safe,
Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to many ships after the US and Iran launched an illegal war six weeks ago. The waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman is a crucial trade route, including for fossil fuels from the region, and has become a key negotiating point as the death toll across the Middle East has mounted.
After talks led by Vice President JD Vance broke down, Trump wrote Sunday on his Truth Social platform that "the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz. At some point, we will reach an 'ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT' basis, but Iran has not allowed that to happen by merely saying, 'There may be a mine out there somewhere,' that nobody knows about but them."
"THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION, and Leaders of Countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted," Trump continued. "I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas. We will also begin destroying the mines the Iranians laid in the Straits. Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!"
The president on Monday again threatened any Iranian vessels that "come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE," and also said that "34 Ships went through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday, which is by far the highest number since this foolish closure began."
As North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries on Monday made clear they did not plan to join Trump's blockade, China's defense minister, Dong Jun, said: "Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us."
Summarizing an interview with Salvatore Mercogliano, maritime historian at Campbell University in North Carolina, Al Jazeera reported Monday that "he expected the US Navy to turn around ships that come out of the strait while keeping at a distance from the range of Iran's missiles and drones."
It's possible the US action could result in "two competing blockades," Mercogliano said. "This has the potential to freeze shipping in and out the Strait of Hormuz entirely."
Keep ReadingShow Less
One Year of Trump Tariffs Prove Corporate Profits Always Came Before the Public Interest
The 2026 NTE Report makes it clear that the Trump administration's primary motivation behind its trade policy is to protect the profits of big US companies.
Apr 02, 2026
One year ago today, President Donald Trump waved around the annual National Trade Estimates Report when he announced his reciprocal tariffs, calling it a “special book” listing other countries’ purported “non-tariff trade barriers.” Using the threat of tariffs (now deemed illegal by the Supreme Court), President Trump has bullied countries into signing up to “reciprocal trade agreements” that target many of the policies included in the report.
Earlier this week, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the updated 2026 version of this “special book,” and we can now see that this year’s National Trade Estimates (NTE) Report continues and expands its targeting of critical public interest regulations related to safety in the digital economy, climate policy, environmental protection, public health, and more.
Consumer advocates have long criticized the annual NTE because administrations of both parties have used it to parrot the demands of behemoth corporate interests, without sufficient regard to the public interest. After the Biden administration took positive steps, recognizing that public interest regulations should not necessarily be listed as “trade barriers,” the Trump administration reverted to regurgitating the hit list of Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Ag, and other billionaire interests—and is now doubling down, attacking even more public interest laws around the world.
Big Tech Accountability:
Given the proximity of Big Tech companies to the Trump administration, it was only to be expected that the NTE Report would build on the previous year’s attacks on global digital policies. Unfortunately, this year’s report once again labels other countries’ digital ecosystem policies as “trade barriers,” simply because Big Tech companies find them objectionable.
The brazen attacks against a range of crucial public interest policies, ranging from digital rights to public health regulations, reflect the unfortunate anti-people policies of this administration.
The digital ecosystem regulations being targeted by the Trump administration include:
- Data protection, privacy, and data governance laws: This year's report identifies 34 jurisdictions with laws that regulate cross-border data flows, compared to 27 in the 2025 NTE Report. This includes several data protection and privacy laws, including those in Brazil, Canada, the European Union (EU), Kenya, Nigeria, India, Turkiye, and Vietnam. These laws all aim to ensure that companies cannot evade local privacy and data protection norms simply by transferring data to jurisdictions with low privacy standards. The NTE Report also targets several data governance measures that seek to regulate cross-border transfers of public sector data, sensitive information (such as health and financial data), and geospatial data. This includes laws in Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Korea, and South Africa.
- Anti-monopoly and revenue-sharing laws: Several jurisdictions are attempting to create more competitive digital ecosystems by implementing digital sector-related competition regulation. Many of these are targeted in the NTE Report, which lists nine jurisdictions’ digital competition laws as trade barriers. This includes laws enacted in the EU, Japan, Turkiye, and the UK, and proposed regulations in Australia, Korea, Brazil, South Africa, and Vietnam.
In addition, the report also targets various revenue-sharing regulations implemented by a number of jurisdictions. These regulations typically seek to force Big Tech platforms to support local industries that they cannibalize—such as traditional news producers—or to ensure that Big Tech platforms contribute to local content development. The report lists six jurisdictions with such laws—Australia, Korea, Canada, and the EU, which already have some form of regulation in place, as well as proposed regulations in New Zealand and South Africa.
This is a significant increase from last year’s report, which listed a total of six jurisdictions’ digital competition-related or revenue-sharing laws.
- Digital services and other taxes: The Trump administration has consistently sought to prevent other countries from taxing US-based Big Tech companies. Many countries are unable to appropriately levy income tax on Big Tech companies as these companies do not have a physical presence within their borders. Instead, they use Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) to ensure that these companies pay some tax within their jurisdictions. Similar to last year, the report identifies eight jurisdictions that have DSTs or equivalent taxes in place: Canada, Colombia, the EU, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkiye, and the UK.
- AI regulations: With AI quickly becoming embedded into nearly every aspect of our lives, some jurisdictions are seeking to regulate the development and deployment of AI systems to mitigate potential harms. This year's report lists the EU’s AI Act as a trade barrier (similar to last year), but also includes another five jurisdictions’ AI-related policies as trade barriers, largely to oppose attempts at developing local AI ecosystems. For instance, the report targets Japan’s subsidies for building out domestic AI capacities and sovereign AI infrastructure. Similarly, domestic procurement norms in Korea and Ecuador have also been criticized.
Climate and Environmental Protection:
While the urgency of climate change demands bold action at all levels, this year’s report unfortunately doubles down on the Trump administration’s hostility toward efforts to hasten a clean energy transition at home and globally. Instead of incorporating lessons from other countries to inform our own urgently-needed climate policies, the NTE attacks other countries’ environmental and climate laws on behalf of polluting industries, such as:
- Policies to boost the clean energy transition: The report takes aim at a number of climate-related policies in the EU, including its Renewable Energy Directive, Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Regulation, Eco Design for Sustainable Products Regulation, and Sustainable Aviation Fuel Regulation, which require industry to meet sustainability guidelines. The report also attacks the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) regulation, which went into effect in January 2026, and the UK’s proposed CBAM, scheduled to commence in 2027, which levy charges on embedded emissions of certain imported products to incentivize lower emission production.
- Green certification and local content policies, including the UAE’s green certification program, which gives priority government services (tax exemptions, subsidies, free trade zone benefits) to industries that use sustainable materials and methods, and India’s domestic content requirements for renewable energy government procurement contracts.
- Policies to tackle plastic pollution, including Canada’s Zero Plastic Waste Agenda; United Arab Emirates ban on some single-use styrofoam products, such as cups and lids; Dominican Republic’s regulations prohibiting import of non-biodegradable straws and cutlery; Oman’s regulation on single-use plastic bags; Cote d’Ivoire’s regulations on import of plastic bags; and Chile’s plan to implement regulations to address single-use plastic in bottles (which was successfully derailed by the US through negotiation).
Public Health
In keeping with the Trump administration’s unscientific public health policies as well as the administration’s desire to promote the interests of Big Pharma and Big Ag, the report attacks several critical public health policies from around the world. This includes:
- Drug pricing regulations and processes in Canada, the EU, India, Australia, and New Zealand, which aim to enhance access to lifesaving medicines.
- Regulations in several countries, including Bangladesh, GCC countries, and Ukraine, on the sale of energy and sugary drinks, including restrictions on advertising and the sale of these products to minors.
- Restrictions on the import of genetically engineered (GE) food in the EU, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Serbia, Taiwan, Turkiye, Ukraine, UK, Angola, Ethiopia, Guatemala, UAE, India, Kenya, and Korea.
- Regulation of pesticides in Vietnam, China, the EU, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Taiwan, Turkiye, and the UK.
- Restrictions by the EU, Thailand, China, Russia, and Taiwan on the use of growth hormones and beta-agonists such as ractopamine to treat beef and pork products.
- Safety and reporting regulations on the import of infant formula in Ethiopia, India, and Colombia
- Regulations related to chemicals, including the EU’s “precautionary” REACH chemical regulation, new hazard classification, labeling, and packaging of chemicals; and regulation of endocrine disruptors; Canada and the EU phasing out per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals” that cause cancer, fertility issues, acid rain, air pollution, bioaccumulate in wildlife and fish, and more; and chemical regulation requirements in Korea and Turkiye.
- Indonesia’s mandate for testing heavy metals in cosmetics; Kuwait’s stipulation for health certificates disclosing the country of origin for imported cosmetics, food, and pharmaceuticals; the EU’s regulations on antimicrobial resistance and veterinary medicinal products.
Additional Public Interest Policies
Shockingly, the report targets South Africa’s anti-discrimination and equal opportunities regulations that seek to ensure greater participation of workers and historically marginalized communities in the corporate sector. Elon Musk criticized South Africa’s regulations earlier this year, claiming that Starlink is “not allowed to operate in South Africa simply because [he’s] not black [sic].” Taken together with President Trump’s unhinged claims about apparent “genocide” against white South Africans, the inclusion of these regulations in the NTE Report is a worrying sign that the US government intends to use trade tools to push its "anti-diversity" agenda globally.
The report also targets halal certification laws in several majority Muslim countries, notably Brunei, Egypt, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
Conclusion
The 2026 NTE Report makes it clear that the Trump administration's primary motivation behind its trade policy is to protect the profits of big U.S. companies. The brazen attacks against a range of crucial public interest policies, ranging from digital rights to public health regulations, reflect the unfortunate anti-people policies of this administration.
Countries across the world should be free to adopt measures to protect citizens’ fundamental rights and consumer safety—without having such measures challenged purely to enable greater corporate profit. And they should not feel beholden to undermine their public interest protections because of the deals they signed under threat of Trump’s sweeping tariffs, especially since those tariffs have now been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court.
While the Trump administration has made it clear that it intends to double down on its coercive trade policies, including through the use of alternative tariff authorities, we stand in solidarity with civil society around the globe in urging countries to stand up to Trump’s bullying and continue to press ahead with important policies to hold Big Tech accountable and to protect their environment and the health of their people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund Billions of Dollars to Businesses That Paid Illegal Tariffs
One organizer called the ruling a "victory for small businesses who have paid billions in unlawful tariffs and deserve their money back."
Mar 05, 2026
US customs officials are due to report to the Court of International Trade in New York on Friday to detail their plans for issuing billions of dollars in refunds to American businesses that paid tariffs which were struck down by the US Supreme Court last month.
On Wednesday, Judge Richard Eaton at the federal trade court ruled that "all importers of record" are "entitled to benefit" from the Supreme Court ruling that found President Donald Trump had illegally invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on more than 300,000 US businesses that import goods, the vast majority of which were small businesses, as a central policy of his economic agenda.
The Supreme Court found Trump could not use the IEEPA to unilaterally set tariffs.
Eaton ruled in a case brought by Atmus Filtration, a company based in Nashville, Tennessee, which filed one of about 2,000 lawsuits at the trade court seeking refunds for the tariffs.
US Customs and Border Protection is likely to appeal the decision or “seek a stay to buy more time," former US trade official Ryan Majerus told NBC News, but Eaton did not appear convinced Wednesday when a Justice Department lawyer Claudia Burke, said in court that issuing refunds en masse would be time-consuming for the CBP and would necessitate the manual review of millions of entries.
"We live in the age of computers," said Eaton. "It must be possible for Customs Service to program its computers so it doesn't need a manual review.
Burke also told Eaton that the administration hadn't determined its position on refunding the tariffs, to which the judge replied: "Your position is clear. The Supreme Court told you what your position is."
Eaton noted that refunds are processed every day by CBP through a process called "liquidation" when goods are imported through the agency. CBP issues an accounting of what is owed by the importer, and the company has 180 days to formally contest its duties. The judge ordered customs officials to stop collecting tariffs on goods currently in the liquidation process and to recalculate duties for goods that were past the 180-day window, without the illegally imposed tariffs, resulting in a refund.
“Customs knows how to do this,” said Eaton. "They do it every day. They liquidate entries and make refunds."
Atmus Filtration estimated in court filings it had paid $11 million in illegal tariffs. The federal government collected $130 billion in tariffs under the IEEPA last year, and according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, could ultimately owe $175 billion in refunds to businesses.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said the Trump administration "must move quickly to reimburse the thousands of small businesses in Virginia and across the country that bore the brunt of President Trump’s harmful and illegal tariffs."
Dan Anthony, executive director of the We Pay the Tariffs coalition, called the ruling a "victory for small businesses who have paid billions in unlawful tariffs and deserve their money back."
"The court acted swiftly and correctly," said Anthony. "Now the ball is in the government's court and small businesses are concerned they will drag this out further. American small businesses have waited long enough. A full, fast, and automatic refund process is what these businesses are owed and anything less is unacceptable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No to War': Spanish Leader Sánchez Undeterred by Trump's Trade Threat
European leaders expressed solidarity with Spain after Trump threatened a trade embargo in retaliation for the prime minister saying the US could not use Spanish military bases to attack Iran.
Mar 04, 2026
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on Wednesday appeared undaunted by President Donald Trump's threat to impose a full trade embargo on Spain in retaliation for its refusal to allow the US to use its military bases to wage war on Iran.
In a 10-minute televised address, Sánchez told the Spanish public that the country "will not be complicit in something that is bad for the world and contrary to our values and interests simply out of fear of reprisals from someone."
Despite Trump's threat, the Spanish government's position on the US and Israel's attacks on Iran, the prime minister said, can be summarized as "no to war."
The address came hours after Trump claimed the US military would use Spain's military bases to launch warplanes "if we want," despite Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares' earlier statement that the facilities could not be used "for anything that isn’t covered by the [United Nations] Charter.”
The US and Israel began attacking Iran early Saturday morning after Oman's foreign minister said American and Iranian officials had been making progress toward a deal on Iran's nuclear program.
Legal experts have said the unprovoked attacks are a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force unless it is "authorized by the UN Security Council or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stunned observers this week when he claimed the US and Israel had waged war because of an "imminent threat"—one that was posed because the US believed Israel was planning to strike Iran, and Iran was expected to retaliate against that potential attack.
On Wednesday, Sánchez said the US and Israeli strikes against Iran, which have so far killed more than 1,000 people, according to Iranian officials, signify a "breakdown of international law."
He compared the bombings to the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, which led to eight years of war and killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, and warned against “repeating the mistakes of the past."
“Very often great wars start with a chain of events spiraling out of control due to miscalculations, technical failures, and unforeseen circumstances," said the prime minister, who has also been outspoken in his opposition to Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and the Trump administration's invasion of Venezuela in January. "Therefore, we must learn from history and cannot play Russian roulette with the fate of millions."
Trump on Tuesday also expressed anger over Spain's refusal to cave to his demand that all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states commit to spending 5% of their gross domestic product on defense by 2035.
But other members of the European Union, which collectively negotiates trade with the US, were quick to express solidarity with Spain.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who met with Trump at the White House on Tuesday, told the president that European countries would not agree to a trade agreement with the US that didn't include Spain, while French President Emmanuel Macron spoke to Sánchez to convey his "solidarity." European Council President António Costa also said he has spoken to the Spanish prime minister and reaffirmed the EU's "firm commitment to the principles of international law and the rules-based order everywhere in the world."
Despite Europe's strong stance against Trump's threats, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday doubled down on the president's rhetoric, appearing on CNBC to accuse Spain of "not meeting their NATO requirement" and of putting "American lives at risk" by not allowing the US to use its bases.
Stéphane Séjourné, the EU's internal market commissioner, was not deterred by Bessent's comments, warning that "any threat against member state is by definition a threat against the EU."
He noted that European countries already joined together this year to defend Greenland from Trump's claim that he would take over the autonomous territory, part of the Danish kingdom, by force.
"If you threaten one particular country... well, we’ve seen that about Greenland," said Séjourné. "I think we saw that there was a lot of unity.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Let the EU-Mercosur Agreement Be a Loss for Animal Welfare
The EU talks a good game, but rhetoric alone is not enough. The ratification delay is a golden opportunity for reflection and to strengthen standards.
Mar 01, 2026
Gestation crates are metal cages, typically no bigger than 7 feet by 2 feet, used to contain female pigs—known as sows—for most of their breeding lives. The crates are so small that their inhabitants cannot walk or even turn around. Natural behaviors such as rummaging, fetching food, nesting, and grazing are all denied to them.
Without question they are among the cruelest fixtures in the meat industry. Many countries in the Western world, including the European Union, have either banned or significantly restricted their use. The European Commission plans to phase them out entirely by 2027. A recent landmark piece of legislation, however, threatens to undo this critical progress.
The EU-Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) Agreement, signed to great fanfare on January 17, 2026, has been heralded as both historic and ambitious. Less discussed, however, is what the agreement could mean for animal welfare protections in both hemispheres.
The EU may be home to some of the highest animal welfare standards of any government in the world, but the same cannot be said for Mercosur, where millions of sows are still confined to gestation crates for long periods of time.
Unless safeguards are put in place, this trade agreement risks reversing the EU's progress on deforestation altogether.
Sinergia Animal, the international animal protection organisation whose Brazilian operations I lead, publishes a yearly report called Pigs in Focus, which ranks major Brazilian producers on their animal welfare standards. Despite being the country’s fourth-largest pork processor and a major dairy company, Frimesa has still not committed to ban crates for sows. Farrowing cages and battery cages for chickens remain widespread too. We have been negotiating with them for years, and despite their competitors making meaningful progress, they are still dragging their heels on making even basic improvements.
The problem does not stop with Frimesa. Minerva Foods, one of the leading meat producers in South America and a major supplier of pork products globally, continues to cause immense suffering. Ear notching, teeth clipping, and tail docking, as well as the routine misuse of antimicrobials, are all common. Again, while commitments to phase out these techniques have been made, our research exposes the use of excessively long deadlines that serve to prolong animal suffering.
These are not exceptional, isolated cases. They represent a wider system across Mercosur countries—one that may end up supplying significantly more of the meat consumed in the EU.
This raises serious questions about the EU’s commitment to animal welfare standards, which is why the European Parliament’s decision in late January to request a legal opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the agreement’s conformity with the EU treaties, thereby halting the ratification process, is a welcome one.
The review could take up to two years, which gives EU policymakers more than enough time to revisit the issue of animal welfare and mitigate against the new incentive structures now in place for Mercosur producers.
It would, however, be a mistake to assume that greater attention should be paid to animal welfare protections alone. After all, lower standards mean higher yields. In Argentina and Uruguay, 89% and 88% of eggs come from hens kept in battery or enriched cages. In Brazil the figure is 95%. In the EU, by comparison, 38% of hens are still kept in cages—something seen as too high but will nonetheless put European producers at a significant competitive disadvantage.
An increase in demand for meat will also magnify pressure on vital ecosystems. As demand for land and animal feed goes up, so too will the rate of deforestation. The resultant loss of habitat will accelerate biodiversity decline, threatening ecosystems that are a key natural defense against climate change.
These developments cannot be divorced from the geopolitics of the climate crisis. With the US having reneged on its international climate commitments, the pressure is on the EU to at least partially fill the leadership void. So far they are failing, with initiatives such as the Deforestation Regulation and electric vehicle mandate either abandoned or reduced in ambition. Unless safeguards are put in place, this trade agreement risks reversing the EU's progress on deforestation altogether.
So what can the EU do? At a minimum, Brussels must demand that meat produced under unacceptably low standards is not imported to the EU. However, equally important is that Mercosur countries are still able to benefit economically from the agreement by retaining access to the EU market. This means pushing for Mercosur countries to eliminate battery cages and sow stalls, ban mutilations without pain relief, enrich spaces, and meaningfully improve handling standards.
The EU talks a good game, but rhetoric alone is not enough. The ratification delay is a golden opportunity for reflection and to strengthen standards. Political leaders have been right to label the agreement as historic, but unless robust protections are put in place, it may well be remembered for all the wrong reasons.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Imposes New Tariffs, State Lawmakers Demand Direct Refunds for Americans
"Your illegal tariff taxes have created an unprecedented affordability crisis, spiking prices for groceries, cars, clothes, electronics, and countless other household necessities."
Feb 24, 2026
As President Donald Trump plows ahead with his controversial and legally contested tariffs, he faces mounting pressure to refund Americans for duties struck down last week by the US Supreme Court, including in a letter from 21 Democratic state legislators, first reported Tuesday by Common Dreams.
Lawmakers from Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont called for a swift response to the high court's "definitive ruling" last Friday that the president's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "is illegal, unconstitutional, and amounts to an unauthorized tax on the American people."
"Your illegal tariff taxes have created an unprecedented affordability crisis, spiking prices for groceries, cars, clothes, electronics, and countless other household necessities," the lawmakers noted. "Families across our states have been forced to make impossible choices between paying for food, keeping the heat on, and affording clothing for their children."
"Farmers have lost markets, small businesses have been stretched to the breaking point, manufacturing hasn't returned as you promised, job growth flatlined, layoffs rose, and the economy has slowed to a crawl," they continued. "Your illegal tariffs have been an unmitigated disaster."
The legislators demanded that Trump "work with Congress immediately to provide a refund to American families for the illegal tariff taxes you imposed on them through higher prices on everything, from clothes and cars to electronics and groceries, and which cost families at least $1,700 each last year alone."
"These refunds should go to the American people, not just the businesses who paid the tariffs and passed on their cost to Americans in the form of higher prices, lost wages, and layoffs," they stressed. The lawmakers also demanded that Trump "immediately abide by the court's ruling and stop collecting these illegal tariff taxes," and "cease and desist on any plan or scheme to reimpose the tariffs at issue in the Supreme Court's decision without congressional approval."
The letter was organized by Defend America Action as part of a campaign pushing for tariff refunds and also sent to US Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). Its signatories include Colorado Sen. Cathy Kipp (D-14) as well as Illinois Sens. Mary Edly-Allen (D-31) and Graciela Guzmán (D-20).
The other signatories are Democratic Reps. Ken Croken (97) of Iowa; Gary Friedmann (14) of Maine; Noah Arbit (20) and Stephen Wooden (81) of Michigan; Susan Almy (Grafton 17), Tony Caplan (Merrimack 8), and Linda Haskins (Rockingham 11) of New Hampshire; Jo Anne Simon (52) of New York; Arvind Venkat (30) of Pennsylvania; Aftyn Behn (51) Tennessee; Rhetta Andrews Bowers (113), Jessica González (104), Vikki Goodwin (47), Josey Garcia (124), Vincent Perez (77), Ron Reynolds (27), and Gene Wu (137) of Texas; and Will Greer (Bennington 2) of Vermont.
Trump is also facing pressure from Democratic governors and members of Congress in the wake of the high court's ruling. On Monday, US Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—along with 19 other members of the chamber's Democratic Caucus, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—unveiled the Tariff Refund Act.
The bill would require US Customs and Border Protection to pay refunds for the $175 billion in unlawfully imposed tariffs within 180 days, prioritizing small businesses. It calls on importers, wholesalers, and large corporations to pass on those refunds to their customers.
On Tuesday, US Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.)—who are all notably not original co-sponsors of that bill—wrote to Trump and highlighted that roughly 95% of the cost from Trump's IEEPA tariffs "was passed on to American families and small businesses in the form of increased costs."
"Any refunds from the federal government should be returned to the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money," the trio argued. "Your inability or unwillingness to provide tariff refunds to American families would represent an egregious abdication of your responsibility as president—a giveaway to giant corporations that amounts to theft from the middle class."
In the House of Representatives, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) also signaled support for refunds, taking aim at Trump on social media Tuesday morning: "We need our money back. He owes us: $1,700 in illegal tariffs per family; $4 billion he's profited off the presidency; $1 trillion he stole in tax breaks for the ultrarich."
Trump has responded to the Supreme Court's decision by not only lashing out at justices but also doubling down on his mission to impose tariffs. Rather than relying on the IEEPA, Trump is now invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. A 10% tariff took effect on Tuesday, though the president promised over the weekend that he would aim for 15%.
"Every day, I hear from my neighbors how their cost of living is rising rapidly," Venkat, one of the state lawmakers who signed the letter, told Common Dreams. "Whether it's food, utilities, housing, or healthcare, tariffs are driving inflation and a regressive tax."
Venkat said that Trump doubling down on tariffs is "disastrous for my constituents and all Pennsylvanians."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Empire Crumbles: The Big Picture
Systems scientists have been warning for decades that the current growth-based world economic order is unsustainable. What is surprising is that its unraveling is accelerating so suddenly—and doing so largely thanks to just one man: Donald Trump.
Feb 10, 2026
In the wee hours of Monday, January 19, US President Donald Trump sent a now-infamous text message to the prime minister of Denmark:
Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America... The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!
Trump’s brief, belligerent message (full text and analysis here) underscores a stark reality: One man is causing an acceleration of civilizational collapse.
Only hours later, at the annual gathering of world political and financial leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a general sense of fear and dread enveloped the proceedings. Even Trump’s half-hearted announcement that he wouldn’t use force to acquire Greenland couldn’t lift the gloom. The most memorable speech was that of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who began by saying:
Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints... But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable...
Systems scientists have been warning for decades that the current growth-based world economic order is unsustainable, and that it will inevitably become smaller and more simplified during the remainder of the 21st century. This downsizing is likely to be messy and sometimes violent. Meanwhile, observers who focus on geopolitics have argued that the US, which built a global empire during the 20th century, is already showing signs of decline in several respects, and that China is poised to become the next global superpower, if only briefly (that is, until the viability of global superpowers is itself outworn).
What is surprising is that this unraveling of the old order is accelerating so suddenly—and doing so largely thanks to just one man. During the last couple of decades, experts on societal collapse discussed whether the “Great Unraveling” would be a slow erosion over decades or a fast disintegration over mere years. The latest evidence (including Trump’s Greenland text) tips the scales toward a faster collapse scenario.
Since this shift is being driven largely by Donald Trump, it’s natural to wonder whether international calm could be restored simply by shunting him aside. There is, after all, growing concern over Trump’s health. (His sleepiness during daytime, his slurred speech, and his frequent frustrated fumbling for the correct word—in his Davos speech he called Greenland “Iceland” four times—have raised questions about his fitness for the job). The US Constitution provides two methods for removing an unfit president: impeachment, and the invocation of the 25th Amendment. Few informed observers of the American political scene expect either of these remedies to be implemented soon. Even if they were, Trump’s actions in the past year have irrevocably undermined stability in the US and globally. If his second presidency were to end tomorrow, Trump likely will have had as decisive an influence on history as pivotal world leaders like Winston Churchill, FDR, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin.
In this article we’ll explore how and why the march toward collapse is hastening, and what this trend has to do with Trump’s failure to understand social power. We’ll also explore what individuals can do in response to increasing signs of societal instability.
Three Elements—and Three Tools—of Social Power
The conclusions about Trump and accelerating societal unraveling stated above are rooted in my studies of the nature of power (see my book Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival and its related limited-run podcast). Every large society, from ancient kingdoms to modern industrial empires, has had to master three elements of social power—i.e., the ability to get other people to do things. The essential problem for would-be leaders of large societies is to enlist the populace to fight wars, build pyramids (or other significant structures and institutions), and increase economic activity. But what motivates people? Typically, they respond to coercion, enticements, and persuasion. If these are the three elements of social power, then it follows that the three main tools of social power are weapons, money, and communication technologies. In the book I trace the development of these tools, and the social consequences of their progressive development and use.
In Power I also point out that there are two basic types of social power—vertical and horizontal. Vertical power is top-down, exercised through threats and punishments: “You must do this, or else,” or “If you do this, I’ll give you that.” Horizontal power is mutual and cooperative: “We can do this together”; it arises through inspiration and negotiation. Democracies tend to rely more on horizontal social power, and autocracies more on vertical power; but durable large societies seem to demand both.
When we see the military of Canada (CANADA??!!) modeling war plans for inflicting maximum casualties on US troops in the event of an invasion, it’s fair to conclude that old alliances are coming unglued fast.
Trump seems reflexively to rely solely on vertical social power—the use of threats and bribes. With such means, he has taken control of the Republican Party, won the presidency twice, and dominated Congress to the point that it has become virtually inert. He has been successful largely because horizontal power relationships in the US have been under increasing strain during the last few decades for several reasons, notably fast-rising economic inequality. From one perspective, his achievements are remarkable. Trump seems to understand power better than any other leader on the national stage. But his understanding of power is one-dimensional.
Trump seems profoundly ignorant of, or indifferent to, horizontal power. He has squandered the goodwill of allies and needlessly created international enemies. Again, Carney at Davos:
The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied—the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat. And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions: that they must develop greater strategic autonomy, in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains... Call it what it is—a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests, using economic integration as coercion.
Even authoritarian nations, if they’re to outlive their leader, need buy-in from citizens and allies. Chinese citizens, for example, expect stability and predictability while rapid economic growth improves their economic prospects. They also know that they will face severe penalties if they speak out against the regime, and they (mostly) willingly comply. Americans, however, thanks to Trump’s poor understanding of power, can now expect much less stability and predictability amid economic stagnation or even reversal. And many will be increasingly unwilling to comply.
Vertical Power Alone Is Fragile
Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller recently told CNN’s Jake Tapper,
...[Y]ou can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world... that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.
Trump is not the first world leader to rely almost exclusively on vertical social power. History is replete with authoritarian regimes and tyrants. Here’s an excerpt from a 3,000-year-old cuneiform text from the Assyrian Empire:
I am Tiglath Pileser the powerful king, the supreme King of Lashanan; King of the four regions, King of all Kings, Lord of Lords, the supreme Monarch of all Monarchs, the illustrious chief who under the auspices of the Sun god, being armed with the scepter and girt with the girdle of power over mankind, rules over all the people of Bel; the mighty Prince whose praise is blazoned forth among the Kings...
Pileser sounds positively Trumpian.
But vertical social power, on its own, often tends to lead to revolution, coup d-état, assassination, or war. Some historical authoritarian dynasties lasted centuries (China offers several examples). However, the lifetime of many modern authoritarian regimes has been brief (for example, Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for only four years). Concentrating the power of the state in one man often makes the glue that holds the nation together more brittle. What does the future hold for Russia after Putin? Why is the post-Gaddafi regime in Libya so frail? Strongmen tend to leave power vacuums in their wake, along with weakened social institutions. The fall of a strongman doesn’t always make way for a vibrant democracy; more often, it leads to chaos and a string of other short-term strongmen. In the case of Trump, the strongman is already old and (in many observers’ opinions) infirm. He’s not overwhelmingly popular, and his likely successors are even less so. The inevitable end of Trump’s rule, whether it occurs in days or years, will leave the US far more polarized and unruly than it was in 2016 when he was first elected.
Internationally, the US system of alliances that was patiently built over seven decades has not adapted well to Trump’s style of threats and bullying. When we see the military of Canada (CANADA??!!) modeling war plans for inflicting maximum casualties on US troops in the event of an invasion, it’s fair to conclude that old alliances are coming unglued fast. And that means global peril for both peace and trade. Trump is not a solely American problem.
Power Tools as Engines of Destruction
In Donald Trump’s hands, the perennial tools of power are becoming engines of destruction.
- Weapons and coercion: From the earliest kingdoms to today’s modern states, it is men with weapons who have conquered or defended territory and countered domestic unrest. Trump’s use of the military, and threats of its use, are not just turning away allies, but also presenting his officers with intractable moral and strategic problems. Meanwhile, he is deploying troops to US cities against the wishes of governors and mayors. The possible results are explored in an article by Claire Finkelstein ominously titled “We Ran High-Level US Civil War Simulations. Minnesota Is Exactly How They Start.” Finkelstein writes, “The core danger we identified is now emerging: a violent confrontation between state and federal military forces in a major American city.”
- Money and enticements: All organized societies gather and exert social power through their control of currencies and trade. Early in his second term, Trump announced hefty tariffs on imports from nearly all nations. While he has waffled on the percentage amount of those tariffs, they are still in effect and having a chilling effect on global commerce. In April, in response to tariffs, Canadian prime minister Carney announced that the 80-year period of American economic leadership was over. The US dollar, which has been the world’s reserve currency since 1946, is now increasingly perceived as toxic. A stampede to ditch the dollar would impoverish all who are invested in it; instead, countries seem to be quietly exiting dollar-denominated holdings. The inevitable result will be a decline in the value of the dollar and in US living standards.
- Communication technologies and persuasion: From the invention of writing in ancient kingdoms to the spread of social media and AI deepfakes in the present, communications tools have been used to induce large numbers of people to think and behave in ways leaders (or “influencers”) want them to. Inspiration, threats, promises, and warnings motivate voting, fighting, and buying. Democracies typically value science and unfettered fact-based journalism. Autocracies usually spew propaganda. The Trump administration has been labeled a tabloid presidency by Timothy L. O’Brien, who worked with Trump for the 2006 biography, TrumpNation, and who compares the president’s leadership style to tabloid magazines like the Weekly World News, with its focus on “dubious,” “trashy,” and “lunatic” stories designed to “knock readers back on their heels.” The administration has attacked mainstream news outlets that have been critical of it, sometimes employing the government’s regulatory powers as a cudgel. Trump’s false claims are so frequent that professional fact-checkers are employed by mainstream print and broadcast news organizations solely to spot, count, and refute them. Meanwhile, through a combination of verbal threats and funding cuts, the Trump administration is assaulting science, medicine, culture, and education. For example, the administration no longer gathers or publishes information about climate change, including both raw data and scientific research.
What to Do?
As I explained at some length in a recent article (which includes lots of resources and advice), local action to build community resilience is the antidote to national and global unraveling. Notice the persistent bonds of horizontal power holding your community together and engage in activities that build social ties. Strengthen local institutions, from credit unions to food co-ops. Identify and participate in international networks of trust and mutual aid, such as the Global Democracy Coalition. And learn from people in other parts of the world who have lived through authoritarian takeovers or successfully opposed them.
Build community resilience wherever you are. My organization, Post Carbon Institute, has produced books, articles, reports, and podcasts—as well as webinars and an online course—to help, and there are other organizations working along complementary lines. Our friends at Shareable have developed a fantastic set of guides (Mutual Aid 101) for anyone interested in starting a mutual aid initiative in their own community.
Collapse is accelerating. So must our efforts to build personal and community resilience. Don’t cower in front of your screen. Get out and join with others in projects to make your town stronger and more socially and environmentally sustainable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy