

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.
Woefully belatedly but seeking hope and light, we honor the remarkable life of Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson, who over six decades "stepped forward again and again and again" to fight for racial, social, economic justice for millions of the disenfranchised. At a moving "Homegoing," his grown children offered soul-stirring tributes to the impassioned, "prophetic voice" of a man of faith who doggedly "opened doors, kicked them down when necessary, so that others were no longer locked out....You fought a good fight."
On March 6 and 7, two gatherings of prayers, pride, tears, laughs, eulogies and gospel music sought in their own singular ways to celebrate the long rich life life of Jesse Jackson - pastor, activist, organizer, two-time presidential candidate, and head of an ever-evolving "rainbow coalition” of the poor and dispossessed that sought to bridge all conceivable divides. When Jackson died in February at age 84, he was hailed as "a civil rights giant," and he was. On April 4, 1968 in Memphis, the then-26-year-old aide to Martin Luther King was standing in the courtyard below the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, talking to King moments before he was shot and killed. Jackson carried on King's work in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference until 1971, when he resigned amidst leadership changes to form what became the Rainbow PUSH (People United to Save Humanity) Coalition.
But his work grew ever broader, working for decades on multiple fronts for multiple social justice issues in America and around the world. He pushed for voting rights, Native rights, Palestinian rights, welfare rights, tenants' rights, prisoners' rights, women's and gay and trans rights; he led boycotts, fair wage battles, union organizing campaigns; he fought against apartheid in South Africa and helped facilitate the release of U.S. hostages in Iran. He spent years spreading the mantra, per his iconic 1972 appearance on Sesame Street with a ragtag, multi--hued bunch of kids, "I am somebody." A simple message with a big meaning, it hit its mark again and again. "When I hear the phrase 'I am somebody,'" said 13-year-old Daniel Russell-Vincent, attending the March 6 People’s Celebration with his parents, "that makes me think, 'You're going to have something to do with this world.'"
That official, five-hour gathering - video here - was held at the 10,000-seat sanctuary of the House of Hope Church on Chicago’s South Side. It drew three former US presidents, white and black pols from Maxine Waters (87) to Tennessee's Justin Pearson (31), local pastors and dignitaries, the presidents of Congo and South Africa, and thousands of regular Chicagoans who skipped work, drove for hours, and stood in long lines to "show up and say what (Jesse) meant to us, and more importantly what he stood for....Every single person here has a Jesse Jackson story." "The city of Chicago shared him with the whole world," said Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. "He was ours, and we were his." "This man has been here my whole life, saying, 'I got you,'" said Detroit Pistons Hall of Famer Isaiah Thomas, who grew up on Chicago’s West Side. "That's what Rev. Jesse Jackson means to us in Chicago."
The speeches were eloquent. Bill Clinton: "He lived a big life. He lived with his head and with his heart." Kamala Harris: "He did not waste time waiting, even when the doors in front of him were barred and bolted." Joe Biden: "Jesse kept hope alive for us." Barack Obama, with the stately oratory he draws on in moments of loss, spoke of a child of a poor single mother whose father rejected him, whose first political act was to lead seven black students into a whites-only college library, where they sat down, refused to leave and "got arrested for reading. Think about that. That's how freedom opens its doors." In the Book of Isaiah, he said, "God is looking for a messenger to guide a hardened and resistant people, and the Lord asks, 'Who shall I send?' to which Isaiah replies, 'Here I am, Lord, send me.' Send me, Jesse said, even as a young man. And the world got a little bit better."
He recounted Jackson's life, from his sharecropper family to the Chicago Theological Seminary to Operation Breadbasket to, after MLK's murder, a "country weary of the idea of justice," where "a talker with his immense gifts...rose above despair, and kept that righteous flame alive." "When the poor and dispossessed needed a champion and the country needed healing, the Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson stepped forward again and again and again, and said, 'Send me,'" Obama declared, "even while growing up in a world separate and unequal, a world designed to tell a child that he or she could only go so far...'I am somebody.' He was talking about everyone who was left out, everyone who was forgotten, everyone who was unseen (and) unheard. And in that sense he was expressing the very essence of what our democracy should be, the ideals at the very heart of the American experiment."
Jackson also "paved the way for so many to follow." In 1984, as another child of a single mom and new college grad "with good intentions but uncertain how to serve," living in a "janky apartment" with a rabbit-eared-TV, he saw Jackson "own" his first presidential debate. Drawn to Chicago as a young organizer, he went to PUSH headquarters on Saturday mornings "to listen and learn...and when Jesse called your name, you stood up a little straighter (to) make things right." Today, "it can be hard to hope," when each day "you wake up to things you didn’t think were possible" - greed, bigotry, ignorance, cruelty - and "it's tempting to just put your head down and wait for the storm to pass." "But this man," he said, voice breaking, pointing to the coffin, "inspires us to take a harder path. He calls on us (to) be messengers of hope, to step forward and say, 'Send me'...'Cause if we don't step up, no one else will."
The next day, a private, emotional "Homegoing" at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition headquarters drew local leaders, allies, friends and family to a celebration where several of Jackson's six grown kids - all at the podium, proof "he raised smart, God-fearing children" - gave searing speeches that often drew tears and amen's from the lively crowd. (Full, moving video here). Jackson had been in failing health for several years; his daughter Jacqueline, his main caregiver, thanked the thousands of doctors, nurses, cooks, Uber drivers and other caretakers who helped him through that time. His son Yusef, who now leads the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, vowed their work will continue "in his name." His eldest son Jesse Jackson Jr., seeking to tell the crowd "who my daddy was" and often weeping as he did, wove a forceful, complex tale that moved from light to darkness and back again.
"We are burying our father today," he declared with feeling, before praising his father's "consistent, prophetic voice." "Who was Jesse Jackson?" he asked. "To the political class that took up most of his time, he was a stranger awaiting a return phone call, reminding (them) of the urgency of the hour." At the same time, critiquing the former day's speeches portraying his father in strictly political terms, he insisted that as a Baptist minister and man of faith "he had a tense relationship with the political order," not based on race or party but "on his unyielding advocacy for the disinherited, the damned, the dispossessed, the disrespected." As such, he demanded solutions "deeply rooted in his own Christian faith," in "his own sense of urgency," and in "the daily lives of (those) he sought to raise up...He took the ministry from Sunday morning, and he delivered it to the people.”
He was also "a funny man, an enjoyable man," he noted. When he was born, his father was doing voter registration work in Selma, and was so overwhelmed by his son's birth "he almost named me Selma." But there were dark times as well: "Being Jesse has not been easy - such was the name of Jesse Jackson." A former Congressman, Jackson Jr. struggled with bipolar depression, and ended up doing time in prison after a 2013 campaign fraud conviction ended his 17-year political career. He tearfully described feeling despair "in the hole," pleading with his father to "get me outta here," and his father urging, "Hold your head up high, son." (Jackson Sr. sought a pardon from Biden, who refused it.) In his soaring, painful, heartfelt eulogy, Jackson Jr. described his father as a transformative figure who "we turned to in our lowest hours...We are better because he lived."
He was echoed by his brother and U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson, who in a soaring speech called their father "a miracle, a special occurrence, a force of nature (who) would not be denied." He praised "the iterations of Jesse Jackson Sr. we have seen...Born to be a nobody, he was too tall to hide, too poor to be included, too black to be respected, too bold to be ignored...Look at what the Lord has done." Above all, he said his father was not a politician but "a public servant." The measure of his humanity: "Only somebody who's been claimed by something greater than themselves can stand up for people whose names they don't even know. My father tried to help somebody, to love somebody, to let every child know he is somebody. My father wanted to make sure the world he was leaving was better than the world he was born into. He tried to make the crooked way straight."
Jesse Louis Jackson was, of course, fully human. For decades, he tried mightily, and sometimes he failed. But, his son argued, "He honored the ideals of the Constitution more than any of the 25 slave-holders who signed it in their hypocrisy, and he believed in America more than America believed in itself." Calling out to his father's many mentors - Martin Luther KingJr., Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Nehru, Gandhi, Castro, all the freedom fighters - Jonathan said, "We have not forgotten, and we will keep fighting for the peacemakers, for civil rights, for equity, diversity, inclusion." Rise, Jesse, rise. Amidst the base, ghastly human dregs that now inhabit our national landscape and wield harrowing power over it, here lived a great man. May he rest in peace and power.

Humanity's continued reliance on fossil fuels led to last year being among the hottest on record, and oceans store over 90% of the excess heat from greenhouse gases. A study out Wednesday details how the related long-term heating, warm years, and marine heatwaves "pose serious but poorly quantified threats" to fish species.
"To put it simply, the faster the ocean floor warms, the faster we lose fish," lead author Shahar Chaikin of Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN) told the Guardian. "A 7.2% decline for every tenth of a degree per decade might sound small... But compounded over time, across entire ocean basins, it represents a staggering and deeply concerning loss of marine life."
For the study, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, Chaikin, his MNCN colleague Miguel B. Araújo and the National University of Colombia's Juan David González-Trujillo analyzed 702,037 estimates of biomass change for 33,990 populations of 1,566 fish species across the Mediterranean, north Atlantic, and northeast Pacific between 1993 and 2021.
"On shorter timescales, warmer years and marine heatwaves were linked to sharp biomass losses of up to 43.4% in populations at the warm edge of the species' range and biomass increases of up to 176% at the cold edge," the study states. Chaikin warned in a statement that the temporary jumps in cooler areas could send misleading signals to managers of fisheries.
"Although this sudden increase in biomass in cold waters may seem like good news for fisheries, these are transient increases," he explained. "If managers raise catch quotas based on biomass increases caused by a heatwave, they risk causing the collapse of populations when temperatures return to normal or when the effect of long-term warming prevails, because these are short-lived increases."
González-Trujillo stressed that "unlike extreme short-term weather fluctuations, which can vary dramatically, this chronic warming exerts a constant negative pressure on fish populations in the Mediterranean Sea, the north Atlantic Ocean, and the northeastern Pacific Ocean."
Specifically, Chaikin said that "when we remove the noise of extreme short-term weather events, the data show that this warming is associated with a sustained annual decline in biomass of up to 19.8%."
Are warmer oceans good or bad for #fish? 🐟 The answer is a dangerous paradox. Our new paper in @natecoevo.nature.com shows how marine heatwaves may create “fake” fish gains that mask a large-scale crash. Read our findings here: www.nature.com/articles/s41...@mncn-csic.bsky.social #ClimateChange
[image or embed]
— Shahar Chaikin (@shaharchaikin.bsky.social) February 25, 2026 at 5:05 AM
Given the findings, Araújo emphasized that fisheries' managers "must balance localized increases with long-term declines extremely carefully to avoid overexploitation."
"As ocean warming continues, the only viable strategy is to prioritize long-term resilience," the study co-author said. "Management measures must plan for the biomass decline expected in an increasingly warm ocean."
Carlos García-Soto is a scientist at the Spanish National Research Council, which manages MNCN. Although not a study co-author, he also highlighted the need for policymakers to understand the "clear risk of misinterpretation" detailed in the new paper.
"In a context of accelerated climate change, policies cannot react solely to extreme events or be based on short-term signals," García-Soto said in a statement. "They need consistency between science, planning, and governance, especially in shared ecosystems or on the high seas."
Also responding to the research on Wednesday, Guillermo Ortuño Crespo of the International Union for Conservation of Nature said that "I believe this is a methodologically sound and valuable study that provides valuable evidence on how different components of ocean warming affect fish biomass."
While recognizing the well-documented and devastating impacts of fossil fuel-driven heating on marine species, Ortuño Crespo also warned that "there is a risk, in my opinion, that climate change will become the main explanation for changes in marine species biomass, leaving aside overfishing."
"Historically, overfishing has been the main determinant of biomass declines in many fisheries around the world," he noted, citing the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. "The proportion of overexploited stocks globally continues to increase, indicating that fishing pressure remains a dominant risk factor. The current challenge is that this overfishing crisis is being further exacerbated by ocean warming and deoxygenation."
"In terms of public policy, the study is highly relevant because it emphasizes that fisheries management systems must become more climate-adaptive," Ortuño Crespo said. "Any management reform must simultaneously address both drivers of change: climate and fisheries. Adjusting quotas solely on the basis of climate without reducing overcapacity and the impact of high-impact gear, such as bottom trawling, is likely to be insufficient to recover stocks."
Wealth inequality in the US has grown unsustainably large, according to one billionaire wealth manager.
In a Monday social media post, Peter Mallouk, the CEO of wealth management firm Creative Planning, shared a graph from the Financial Times showing that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending.
"This is 100% completely unsustainable as a society," Mallouk commented. "Nearly 50% of all consumer spending now comes from the top 10% of earners. The bottom 80%? Their share keeps falling."
Mallouk added that this disparity is "why the economy can look strong in the data while millions of people feel like they're falling behind."
Mallouk's observations about the highest earners accounting for a disproportionate share of consumer spending are in line with what economists have been describing as a "K-shaped" economy in which wealth continues growing for the very wealthiest while the vast majority of the population gets left behind.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that "the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year," as "upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit."
Bushmeneva also projected that this divide would only grow in the coming year given that the tax cuts passed by Republicans in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 are expected to provide outsized benefits to the wealthiest Americans, even as "a reduction in funding to various government programs" such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program "will weigh on low-income households."
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told Axios in a January interview that the data on US consumer spending patterns shows that "the economy is narrowly perched on the backs of the well-to-do," which he noted leaves it in a vulnerable position should the ultrawealthy pull back on their spending at any time.
Zandi's view of the instability of such an economy was echoed in a February column by Carol Ryan of The Wall Street Journal, who warned about the dangers of relying on the wealthiest to drive economic growth.
Given that the wealth of these Americans is tied up in the stock market, Ryan argued, this "could mean the entire economy pays a steep price in the next market correction," as consumer spending would then likely turn negative.
While the richest Americans continue getting wealthier, the US labor market has entered a downturn, as the most recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the American economy lost 92,000 jobs, and overall the economy has posted a net loss of 19,000 jobs since May 2025.
Two Democratic congressional leaders on Monday said they had "low expectations" for President Donald Trump's Department of Justice to examine alleged perjury by ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, but they noted that the statute of limitations for making false statements to Congress is five years as they referred her for an investigation—meaning Noem's recent remarks about her department's operations under her leadership could be probed after Trump leaves office.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi days after Noem testified before two panels earlier this month—proceedings that came just before Trump announced he was firing the secretary.
Noem, who will officially leave office at the end of the month, has presided over the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as Trump has embarked on his mass deportation plan—deploying armed federal agents to cities across the US, resulting in the deaths of more than two dozen people including at least three US citizens, sending hundreds of people to a notorious prison in El Salvador against a judge's orders, and detaining tens of thousands of people in centers known for abuse and neglect.
Those subjects were all addressed at the hearings in which Noem testified on March 3 and 4, and Durbin and Raskin argued in their letter to Bondi that the secretary's comments on the issues could make her liable for a federal crime.
"After months of evading our committees’ requests to testify in routine oversight hearings, Secretary Noem made a series of demonstrably false statements in a brazen attempt to undermine critical congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security," wrote the lawmakers. "Making false statements to Congress, and making false statements under oath, are federal crimes."
Noem repeatedly told the committees that under her leadership, DHS "absolutely" complies with federal court orders, and persisted in that claim even after Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) pointed out that days earlier, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz in the District Court of Minnesota had identified 210 instances of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violating court orders. The violations noted by the judge only represented those that took place between December 2025-February 2026 in the state of Minnesota.
Schiltz is one of several judges who have determined DHS and its underlying agencies have defied court orders, including in cases when judges have ordered the immediate release of immigrants who were held without due process or on false pretenses. The fact that Noem repeatedly told lawmakers that "we comply with all federal court orders" could violate federal statutes including 18 USC §1001, said Durbin and Raskin.
Noem was also asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) about a $220 million advertising campaign that featured her prominently in what she said was an effort by Trump to get "the message out" about her agency's anti-immigration operations. The president denied on the day he fired Noem that he had known anything about the campaign, but aside from that discrepancy, Durbin and Raskin said the outgoing secretary may have falsely stated that there was a competitive bidding process for the campaign.
Noem was confronted with evidence during one of the hearings that one contractor, Safe America Media, had received $143 million to produce the campaign. But she said repeatedly that "there was no involvement whatsoever of anybody that is on the political appointee side of this position on that media contract."
New reporting has shown that Noem actually "handpick[ed]" four companies that were politically connected to the secretary and her allies for the ad campaign.
At both the Senate and House hearings, Noem was asked whether DHS has detained US citizens since Trump took office for his second term last year. She responded definitively in the negative at both hearings—making "demonstrably false" statements, said Durbin and Raskin.
At least 170 US citizens were wrongfully detained in the first six months of Trump's crackdown, and during "Operation Midway Blitz" in Durbin's home state, a 15-year-old, a man who had presented his birth certificate and ID to prove his citizenship, and members of Chicago Alderman Mike Rodriguez's staff were among those who were detained.
Finally, the two Democrats accused Noem of perjuring herself when she responded to questions about conditions in ICE detention centers, claiming that the facilities provide "medical care to all of our detainees [and] three nutritious meals a day," and that detention standards are "the highest in the nation."
Numerous reports have pointed to medical neglect and abuse—some that could amount to torture, according to Amnesty International—at detention centers across the country. At least 48 people have died in these ICE facilities since January 2025. A family's account of conditions at Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas, which is run by private prison contractor CoreCivic, detailed moldy and worm-infested food and medical neglect, with the center ignoring a doctor's referral for a comprehensive scan to examine a lump under the mother's rib cage.
"There is ample evidence that ICE is neither meeting its own detention standards, nor providing anything that resembles a nutritious meal," wrote Durbin and Raskin. "ICE internal audits have documented significant failures to meet medical care standards."
The lawmakers urged Bondi to respond to their referral promptly while noting that they had "low expectations" that the Trump administration would hold Noem accountable.
At the House hearing earlier this month, Balint issued a warning to Noem that Americans "will get accountability" sooner or later.
One day, Kristi Noem won’t have Trump to hide behind.
She will be held accountable for the terror she and her employees have unleashed on the American people. pic.twitter.com/qVbz8Rd7Jy
— Rep. Becca Balint (@RepBeccaB) March 4, 2026
"You are the secretary of DHS—for now," said Balint. "And you think you're immune from accountability, but I promise you this: One day, [Trump] is not going to be president anymore. He is not going to be in charge, and when that day comes, we will still be here."
The US State Department is threatening to strip HIV/AIDS and other disease prevention funds for more than a million people in the African nation of Zambia in a bid to extort the country for greater access to its mineral wealth.
The New York Times reported Monday on the draft of a memo prepared for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which states that "we will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale."
The Trump administration is considering whether to "significantly cut assistance" from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which provides daily HIV treatment to around 1.3 million Zambians and other funds for tuberculosis and malaria medications that save tens of thousands of lives each year.
At the time that PEPFAR was created, under the administration of President George W. Bush, HIV was killing around 90,000 people per year in Zambia. That number had been reduced to 16,000 in 2024, according to data from the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).
"Things are not okay," said Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan and a Brookings Institution fellow.
Threats to cut PEPFAR are part of a broader push by the Trump administration to wield desperately needed foreign medical aid as a tool of coercion against impoverished nations, whose health systems have been thrown into turmoil by the Trump administration's massive cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) last year.
According to the Times, 24 African nations have signed memoranda of understanding (MOU) under the Trump administration's so-called "America First Global Health Strategy" in order to unlock some US funding that has been cut.
Many of the deals require nations to increase their own health spending in order to restore just a fraction of what the US previously provided:
"According to an analysis by the nonprofit Partners in Health, health funding under the agreements would drop by 69% to Rwanda, 61% to Madagascar, 42% to Liberia, and 34% to Eswatini, where a quarter of adults live with HIV," the Times reported in January.
Meanwhile, the deals have come with other, often ideological, strings attached. Kenya's memorandum requires it to provide data guaranteeing that no funding is being used for abortion care, and to direct funds to certain Christian faith-based providers, even though they refuse services like HIV care to LGBTQ+ people.
Nigeria's agreement likewise requires more than $200 million to over 900 Christian faith-based healthcare facilities across the country and emphasizes protecting Christian victims of violence from the Islamist group Boko Haram, even though the majority of the group's victims are Muslim.
Some countries have rejected the deals, calling them one-sided and exploitative. Last month, Zimbabwe walked away from a deal that would have provided $367 million over five years because it required the country to give the US unfettered access to citizens' health data and biological samples.
The deal offered to Zambia is similar to those offered to other countries in that it requires the government to commit $340 million in health spending in exchange for $1 billion from the US over five years, less than half of what it received under previous US administrations. It also demands that Zambia provide citizens' health data to the US for 10 years, longer than the deals agreed to by other nations.
But the deal also stipulates that, to receive any funding, Zambia must provide US corporations with easier access to the nation's vast mineral wealth.
Zambia has some of the world's largest reserves of minerals such as copper, lithium, and cobalt, which are essential to green energy technology. The Trump administration says the country has given China greater access to its mines than it has given to the US.
Zambia would also be required to share mining databases with US experts and renegotiate a massive 2024 contract with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a US-based foreign assistance agency, to reduce mining regulations.
After the terms of the deal leaked to The Guardian last month, Asia Russell, director of the HIV advocacy organisation Health GAP, derided it as a proposal for the "shameless exploitation" of Zambia.
In February, Zambia rejected the deal, with a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health saying it "did not align with the position and interests of Zambia."
Now the Trump administration is using HIV treatment funding in an effort to force its leaders back to the table and make an example of them for other countries that may seek to go their own way.
The memo describes threats to AIDS funding as a way to demonstrate the "use of sticks" to other countries with which it seeks to negotiate.
If Zambia refuses to sign, it says, “sharp public cuts to American foreign assistance would significantly demonstrate to aid-receiving countries the seriousness of our interest in collaboration and our insistence on tangible benefits under our America First foreign policy."
Zambia has already been stripped of more than half its annual PEPFAR funding from the US since the Trump administration returned to power last year through a combination of foreign aid freezes, rescissions, and budget cuts that stripped billions from the program.
A survey of 76 HIV clinics across 32 mostly African countries that received PEPFAR funds, conducted by the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium, found that, as a result of cuts, many experienced disruptions to testing and treatment, including drug shortages and staff layoffs.
Citing modeling studies, the researchers estimated that funding disruptions to PEPFAR just last year "resulted in more than 120,000 deaths by November 2025, including more than 13,000 child deaths."
Another study by Imperial College London predicted that just the three-month disruption at the beginning of President Donald Trump's second term would result in more than 37,400 excess deaths by 2060.
In a statement posted to social media on Monday, Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee defended the threats to cut PEPFAR, saying that "Just like every other country, Zambia is free to walk away from these negotiations." The REpublicans said it was "ridiculous to assume the United States should fund entire health systems for countries that turn around and give priority access to critical supply chains to China."
Russell said that "the State Department is threatening Zambia with an embargo on essential medicines in order to plunder its minerals."
While she said "Zambia’s MOU text is the first we know of that explicitly ties exploitation of mineral wealth," she noted that similar "exploitative conditions" are reportedly part of other nations' memoranda as well, but that information is scarce because they have been "negotiated in secret" and texts have not been made public.
Julius Kachidza, the chair of Zambia’s Civil Society Self-Coordinating Mechanism, said that yet another massive cut in US government funding “would be apocalyptic. It could be quite a disaster, especially to me. And the majority of people living with HIV in Zambia.”
Two Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation that would prohibit online prediction markets from allowing bets on government actions that could be easily gamed by insiders.
The proposed Banning Event Trading on Sensitive Operations and Federal Functions (BETS OFF) Act, unveiled by US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), would ban "wagering on government actions, terrorism, war, assassination, and events where an individual knows or controls the outcome."
The lawmakers said the legislation was necessary due to suspiciously timed bets that were placed on the cryptocurrency-based prediction platform Polymarket related to imminent US military actions in Venezuela and Iran, raising concerns that Trump administration officials were using insider information to profit from life-or-death policy decisions.
The fact that the bets were placed on Polymarket is notable because Donald Trump Jr., President Donald Trump's eldest son, sits on the company's advisory board. Wired reported last year that Polymarket also received an investment from 1789 Capital, the venture capital firm where Trump Jr. serves as a partner.
Given this potential massive conflict of interest, argued Murphy, it is imperative for Congress to step in and put a stop to possible insider trades related to war and other government policy matters.
"There’s no getting around the fact that any prediction market where somebody knows or controls the outcome of a bet is ripe for corruption,” said Murphy. “Even worse, prediction markets are also an avenue by which government decisions get influenced by who's making money off them, and that should be unforgivable to the American public."
Murphy added that "when events that involve good and evil, life and death become just another financial product, morality no longer matters and the soul of America is fundamentally corrupted."
Casar said that the legislation is needed to battle the "crisis of corruption" engulfing the US government during President Donald Trump's second term.
"Too often, prediction markets are becoming yet another place for rich and powerful people to cash in on insider information," Casar said. "This bill will put a stop to that."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—who is co-sponsoring the bill along with Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), and Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI)—said it was "sickening" to think of Trump administration insiders making money from their own acts of military aggression.
"No one should be able to gamble on death and destruction, especially people connected to Trump with insider knowledge,” Tlaib said. “Congress must ban profiting from war and war crimes."
“While Trump voters by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war."
War hawks such as Sen. Lindsey Graham are pushing President Donald Trump to keep escalating the war he is waging against Iran, but a new poll of the president's base—those who voted for him in 2024, when he campaigned on "no new wars"—found that doing so would likely anger the steadily shrinking faction of Americans who have thus far continued to support him.
The poll, commissioned by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative, found that 79% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 want a swift end to the US and Israel's war in Iran, which began on February 28 when the president abruptly ended talks regarding Iran's nuclear program and joined Israel in attacking the country.
The survey revealed a political reality at odds with Trump's recent claim that "MAGA loves what I’m doing—every aspect of it."
More than a year after they cast votes for Trump, who campaigned relentlessly on making life more affordable for Americans, the poll found that 55% of people who supported the president are concerned about rising gas prices as a result of the war. The average price of gas has been steadily rising since the US and Israel began the war, leading Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of the global oil supply flows. As of Wednesday the average price in the US was up to $3.842 per gallon.
Fifty-eight percent of Trump voters said they would oppose sending US troops to fight on the ground in Iran, a step the president is reportedly considering taking in order to seize Iran's crucial oil hub on Kharg Island in the Strait of Hormuz.
Just over three-quarters of people who backed Trump in the last election said they supported the president's decision to go to war, but less than a month into the conflict, that number is down eight points from 84% on February 28, according to a Fox News poll at the time.
Quincy Institute executive vice president Trita Parsi noted that even the White House is seemingly searching "for an off-ramp from this widening conflict," in which 13 US troops have been killed and 200 have been wounded. More than 1,300 Iranians have been killed, according to the country's ambassador to the United Nations, as well as more than 900 Lebanese civilians, and at least 15 people in Israel.
"Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
Trump said earlier this week that "maybe we shouldn’t be there at all," and his advisers have reportedly been calling on the president to quickly determine an exit plan to avoid a political backlash.
Meanwhile, said Parsi, "neoconservatives are pressuring President Trump to double down on this war. But this poll shows that Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
In Responsible Statecraft, which is published by the Quincy Institute, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos noted that young MAGA voters, whose support was instrumental in delivering the White House for Trump in 2024, are "driving much of the rising opposition to the war among the president's base."
Only 54% of Trump voters aged 18-29 said they supported the war, while 46% opposed it.
"The cracks are beginning to show in President Donald Trump’s base" over the war, wrote Beaucar Vlahos.
Saagar Enjeti, conservative host of the popular Breaking Points podcast, told Responsible Statecraft that "the Republican base is clearly willing to trust President Trump up to a point but remain weary of any potential escalation."
“As evidenced by this polling the wisest move would be to declare victory and end this immediately," he said.
The poll, which was taken between March 12-14, was released a day after Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced he was resigning from his position because Iran had "posed no imminent threat to our nation" when Trump began the war. The president, said the longtime Trump loyalist, had attacked Iran "due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."
Kent, whom critics noted has ties to white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, is the most prominent Trump administration official to resign from the White House in protest of the president's policies and actions.
On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in her opening statement that the US intelligence community determined that US airstrikes last year "obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment program, before claiming that the president alone can determine whether a country poses an "imminent" threat.
While those who voted for the president "by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war,” said Parsi on Wednesday. “Trump risks losing significant portions of his base if he escalates the war with ground troops and allows the war to further push up gas prices.”
"This is repression carried out by the state for electoral purposes. It's about stamping out your objections to their autocratic aims," said one critic.
A Wednesday CBS News report claimed that the FBI and Internal Revenue Service are "forming a new initiative to investigate nonprofit organizations over suspected possible links to domestic terrorism."
According to CBS News, the new initiative is the agencies' response to a December memo written by Attorney General Pam Bondi requiring the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
A government official told CBS News that the FBI-IRS initiative would focus on "exploring potential funding streams at nonprofits that support domestic terrorism or political violence."
But Tom Brzozowski, former domestic terrorism counsel at the DOJ's National Security Division, told CBS News he was concerned by the broad scope of investigatory activities outlined in Bondi's memo, and he questioned whether the DOJ had established the proper predication to justify amassing a list of nonprofit groups to be targeted in a criminal probe.
"If you're going to pull down information and retain it in a government data set, you have to have predication to do that," Brzozowski emphasized, "especially if you're looking at it through an investigative lens."
Bondi's December memo was written in response to National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
Rights groups have for months been sounding the alarm about the implications of NSPM-7, which they said could be used to initiative a widespread crackdown against the Trump administration's critics.
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of Campaign for New York Health, wrote that news of the FBI-IRS initiative was a "periodic reminder that Trump’s DOJ changed the indicators of domestic terrorism to include pro-immigrant, pro-LBTQ, anti-Trump, and anti-capitalist speech."
Journalist Marcy Wheeler wrote that the FBI's initiative with the IRS shows it's "trying to criminalize dissent over protecting against Islamic and antisemitic terrorism that Trump has stoked with his illegal war" against Iran.
Journalist Diego Fonseca noted that going after nonprofit groups has long been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes seeking to consolidate power.
"[Salvadoran President Nayib] Bukele has treated nongovernmental organizations as 'foreign agents,'" Fonseca observed, while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor] Orbán "has a 'Transparency Law' targeting civil society orgs. Left or right, it’s the authoritarian playbook: round up and paralyze any possible criticism."
Matt Ortega, a Democrat running to represent California's 14th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, warned that the FBI-IRS initiative was a sign of a widespread crackdown against political opposition.
"They called Alex Pretti a 'domestic terrorist' and only backtracked because witnesses had NFL-like coverage of the incident," Ortega wrote. "This is repression carried out by the state for electoral purposes. It's about stamping out your objections to their autocratic aims."
“Burgum’s Extinction Committee is immoral, illegal, and unnecessary,” said the head of the Center for Biological Diversity, which warns it could put the final nail in the coffin of the extremely endangered Rice's whale.
An environmental organization is suing to stop the Trump administration from illegally convening a meeting that could allow oil and gas companies to drive an extremely endangered whale species to extinction.
On Wednesday, the Center for Biological Diversity filed an emergency lawsuit against Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in a federal district court in Washington, DC, seeking to block him from convening the Endangered Species Committee, more commonly known as the “Extinction Committee,” on March 31.
This committee is sometimes referred to as the "God Squad" because its members have the power to grant exemptions to the Endangered Species Act that can result in the extinction of imperiled species.
Led by the interior secretary, it has seven total members who can vote to override regulations. Five of them are senior executive officials: the secretaries of agriculture and the Army, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Each affected state also receives a delegate to the committee, but they collectively receive just one vote. Five votes of seven are needed to grant an exemption.
In the federal register, Burgum announced earlier this week that the committee would meet at the end of the month “regarding an Endangered Species Act exemption for Gulf of America oil and gas activities," referring to the Gulf of Mexico by the name preferred by President Donald Trump.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Burgum was seeking to override a requirement for oil and gas companies in the Gulf of Mexico to drive boats at safe speeds in order to protect the nearly extinct Rice’s whale from strikes.
These whales, named after the cetologist Dale Rice, who first recognized them as distinct from other whales in 1965, were not formally recognized as a new species until 2021.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, only about 51 Rice's whales remain after BP's catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, which devastated their population.
Last May, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion concluding that their continued existence—as well as that of other whale and sea turtle species—was under threat from boat strikes, since Rice's whales spend most of their time in the top 15 meters of water, which often puts them on a collision course with oil vessels.
The agency issued guidance requiring oil industry ships to travel at slower speeds in the eastern Gulf, saying that if they were followed, lethal collisions would be “extremely unlikely to occur” and that the species would be protected.
The Extinction Committee could override this rule, but it has only been convened three times in its history, and not since 1991, when then-President George H.W. Bush used it to open up timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest that endangered the habitats of spotted owls, which were considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The Extinction Committee is invoked so rarely because the circumstances for its use, as outlined in law, are extremely narrow: It can only be convened within 90 days of a biological opinion by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service concluding that a federal action is likely to jeopardize a species. They must also determine that there is no “reasonable and prudent alternative” to the action the government plans to take.
In its lawsuit, the Center for Biological Diversity says that neither of these criteria has been reached, since the Fisheries Service issued its opinion 10 months ago and already established a reasonable alternative: slowing down the boats.
"Slowing boat speeds is not just reasonable, it’s easy, and it’s the absolute minimum the oil and gas industry can do to save Rice’s whales from extinction,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The group said Burgum is also flouting other requirements of the law, including that the meeting be presided over by an administrative judge and have a formal hearing with public comment. No judge has been appointed by Burgum, and the meeting is only scheduled to be livestreamed on YouTube, with no forum for public input.
“Burgum’s Extinction Committee is immoral, illegal, and unnecessary,” Suckling said. “There’s no emergency, no legal basis to convene the committee, and no legal way to approve the extinction of Rice’s whales. This sham is nothing more than Burgum posturing for Trump and saving the fossil fuel industry a few dollars by allowing its boats to drive faster and more recklessly.”
If Rice's whales were to go extinct, they could be the first ever large whale species to be driven out of existence by human activity in recorded history. Earthjustice says that the rollback of boat speed restrictions and other activities by the Trump administration—including the approval of the first BP oil field in the Gulf since the 2010 spill—are putting other species at risk too.
The scheduled March 31 meeting, said the group, "could kick off a months-long process to decide whether to give special treatment to the oil industry by allowing offshore drilling to go forward even if it would lead to the extinction of Gulf species."
“The marine species in the Gulf are our natural heritage. There’s no imaginable justification to sacrifice them,” said Steve Mashuda, Earthjustice's managing attorney for oceans. "It’s beyond reckless even to consider greenlighting the extinction of sea turtles, fish, whales, rays, and corals to further pad the oil industry’s pockets at the public’s expense. Giving carte blanche to industry also takes us further away from renewable energy that is cleaner, cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient than ever before.”