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.
Another Memorial Day: boasts, insults, "self-defense strikes," cheap clichés from a "Secretary of War" prattling about dead boys "delivered from the battlefield into the arms of a loving Lord and savior." Spare us. And maybe revisit the war to end all wars, which didn't - its "infinity of waste" and trenches with skulls in the sides where "he who had a corpse to stand on was lucky." Pat Barker: “A society that devours its own young deserves (no) unquestioning allegiance.”
"Happy Memorial Day to all," babbled our ever-unseemly Idiot-In-Chief, "including the Dumocrats, who disrespect our Military and all of the tremendous success that it has had over the last year," because obviously the best way to honor the dead is to not acknowledge their sacrifice but to denigrate half the ravaged country they died defending. Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, the infinitely hollow, "Wherever the American soldier (falls), he does it for the destiny of a nation like no other - there’s never been anybody like you." Also, noted Private Bone Spurs, 18,000 Williams, over 20,000 Johns, and other names fell, but "not too many" Donalds. Huh.
Adding to the day's eloquence with a much-needed "monster truck rally vibe" was inexplicably non-veteran, Hegseth bestie, tawdry aging rock star Kid Rock. Because "Tokyo Rose wasn't available," he was chosen by the Pentagon to honor American service members' ultimate sacrifice in a hoodie, fedora, gold chain and sunglasses, looking like "a creature you’d expect to hiss at you from the dank depths of a garbage bin" and intoning, "We are remembering the sacrifice and service of so many who are not with us today...It’s a special day. We’re thinking of them... Keep on Kid Rocking in the free world."
Then there was bombastic, dime-store-cliché-spouting Christo-fascist Pete Hegseth urging we "remember our republic was forged and purchased with blood, American blood," evidently only male according to his pronouns. Ever a fatuous buffoon, he declaimed "the sacred names of bygone eras to the 13 souls of Epic Fury (who) answered the call when it mattered the most (and) gave the last full measure of devotion," even when he failed them in an Iranian strike in Yemen: "They stood against the darkness of the world wearing the breastplate of righteousness (and) raced to the brink so we could walk in freedom and prosperity (and) may almighty God bless our warriors." Jesus weeps.
It remains unclear how many of the up to 22 million dead, both military and civilian, and over 20 million wounded, "the butcher's bill" of World War One, came to be blessed by almighty God, especially in its Western Front's godforsaken trenches teeming with sludge, rats, mud, blood, water and disease. The war's "inconceivable loss" and "purposeless waste of a generation" is perhaps best exemplified by the Battle of Verdun, where the French, set upon by German forces, adopted a "They Shall Not Pass” mantra that in the end saw over 700,000 dead on both sides - ultimately, vast "heaps of bones."
For many, the horrors of "the greatest conflagration the world had seen" live on through the searing literature, both prose and poetry, that emerged from them. Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum Est epitomizes the bitter, bloody tone that often prevailed amidst its "guttering, choking, drowning" victims - Hegseth's benighted "warriors." "Bent double, like old beggars under sacks/ Knock-kneed, coughing like hags," cursing, gargling, limping bootless through sludge, "blood-shod...deaf even to the hoots/Of gas-shells dropping softly behind," they reject, "The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est/Pro patria mori."
Siegfried Sassoon lived the privileged life of a British country gentleman, writing poetry and fox hunting, until the start of World War 1, when he served as an officer with the Royal Welch Fusiliers in France. He was awarded a Military Cross, was later wounded in action, and refused to fight any longer to protest "a senseless slaughter." On June 15, 1917, he wrote "A Soldier's Declaration" as "an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those how have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers."
"I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolonging those sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust," he wrote. He was protesting, he made clear, "against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed...against the deception which is being practiced on them. Also I believe that it may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realise."
His letter was read before the House of Commons and printed in The London Times. He expected to be court-martialed; instead, he was declared "mentally unsound" and sent to Craiglockhart War Hospital, where Dr. William Rivers was charged with restoring Sassoon’s “sanity” and sending him back to the trenches. The story of their real-life encounter, wherein Rivers came to diagnose war's "shell-shock" and share Sassoon's view, is powerfully told in Pat Barker's historical novel Regeneration, the first in a trilogy about the psychological carnage of war. "It (was) the Great White God de-throned. We assumed we were the measure of all things," Rivers says. "(But) nothing justifies this. Nothing nothing nothing."
Siegfried Sassoon's 1918 Suicide in the Trenches mourns "a simple soldier boy/Who grinned at life in empty joy" until he goes to war: "In winter trenches, cowed and glum/With crumps and lice and lack of rum/He put a bullet through his brain./No one spoke of him again./ You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye/Who cheer when soldier lads march by,/Sneak home and pray you'll never know/The hell where youth and laughter go." Too many of those young lie in a cemetery near Ypres, where one Inscription stands out in a sea of "For King and Country" headstones. It was written on the grave of Arthur Young by his father, a diplomat wiser than any vacuous Hegseth: "Sacrificed to the fallacy that war can end war."
Average gas prices in the United States are quickly climbing toward $5 per gallon this week as US President Donald Trump's war with Iran shows little sign of resolution.
Where average prices were about $2.98 the day before the war's launch, they had shot up to $4.48 as of Tuesday, according to AAA's gas price tracker, as Iran's restriction of ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz has squeezed global oil shipping and the shipping of other fuel sources like liquefied natural gas (LNG), causing global price hikes.
And while Trump has touted America’s supposed “energy independence” as an ace in the hole, achieved by ratcheting up fossil fuel production while canceling solar and wind power projects, data shows that the US has been hit harder by the price shocks than any other major economy in the world, with those that have embraced renewable energy being especially resilient.
Although the US leads the world in oil production by a large margin, data from JP Morgan Commodities research, analyzed Friday by MarketWatch, showed that between February 23 and April 27, the US experienced about a 42% increase in gas prices, the fifth-highest in the world.
"The spike in US gasoline prices over the past two months has outpaced everywhere except Southeast Asia, the region most dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf," explained Yahoo Finance geopolitics reporter Jake Conley.
Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader and managing director at CIBC Private Wealth, explained to MarketWatch last week that while increased fuel production gives the US a "buffer," oil is a global market and "it doesn’t operate in a vacuum." She said, "Global tightness and domestic bottlenecks still show up in gasoline prices."
Meanwhile, some of the countries that have best survived the price hikes include France and Spain, which derive large shares of their power from nuclear energy and renewables, respectively.
Craig Hanson and Jessica Isaacs, a pair of researchers at the World Resources Institute, explained last month that while a mix of factors is at play, countries less reliant on fossil fuels generally "find themselves in a better position to withstand the current crisis."
"Every country has homegrown access to at least two clean energy resources—the sun shines, and the wind blows just about everywhere at some point," they said. "The same cannot be said of oil and gas, where production is concentrated in a small number of countries and exposed to geopolitical disruption."
"Renewable resources like wind, solar, and geothermal have zero fuel costs, and the fuel cost of nuclear power is quite low. Again, the same cannot be said of fossil fuels, which have costs set by volatile global markets," they added. "These two advantages are why some of the world’s clean energy frontrunners are faring better than other countries amidst the Iranian energy crisis."
As Reuters reported in late April, the contrast between Europe's biggest gas guzzlers and green energy adopters is particularly stark.
While Albania has kept energy prices in check and even lowered them compared to last year by using its large system of hydroelectric dams, which supply much of its power, countries like Germany and Italy, which still rely heavily on gas, have seen electricity prices spike.
Hanson and Isaacs noted that while clean energy investments have helped soften the blow of global price shocks, the effects are not the same across the board. While price hikes for the electricity used to power factories, homes, and cars have been blunted by the availability of alternative energy sources, others, like heat—which are more reliant on natural gas—have still been affected.
Still, though, they said the crisis has shown that in addition to environmental sustainability, "clean energy systems’ greatest benefits today might actually be price stability and domestic energy resilience."
While Trump has continued his efforts to choke off any federal investment in renewable energy and double down on oil and gas production, other nations have taken the war’s price hikes as a sign to further accelerate their transition away from fossil fuels.
Germany and several other European Union members, for example, have announced expedited timelines to expand offshore wind and solar investments, explicitly citing the volatility in oil markets caused by the war.
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the energy price shocks showed that "the only real energy independence from the Middle East is renewables."
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
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.”
With Graham Platner set to become the official Democratic US Senate candidate in Maine following Gov. Janet Mills' suspension of her primary campaign, progressives on Tuesday were incensed by a Massachusetts congressman’s public opposition to the populist oyster farmer, which arrived with a tacit endorsement of five-term Republican Sen. Susan Collins instead.
Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), a former GOP organizer and the scion of an influential political family with Wall Street and Kennedy ties, told CNN Monday that he views a tattoo Platner got while serving in the US Marines as "disqualifying."
"I hope Maine voters agree with me," he said. "I think it would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to think that Graham Platner's brand of the Democratic Party is what wins us durable majorities throughout this country."
💥NEW: Dem Rep. Jake Auchincloss says Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo should be “DISQUALIFYING”🤯
“I find that tattoo and his commentary about it to be personally disqualifying. I hope Maine voters agree with me.”
CNN’s Boris Sanchez: “Wow.” pic.twitter.com/tMzWkz9h88
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) May 25, 2026
The tattoo, which Platner says he got after a night of drinking with fellow soldiers while on shore leave during a tour of duty, resembled a skull-and-crossbones symbol worn by some Nazi soldiers. A controversy broke out last October over the tattoo as well as old posts Platner wrote in online forums in the years after his military service. He has maintained he did not know the tattoo's origins and that the old posts don't represent his current views.
The controversy did not stop Platner from polling well ahead of Mills before her decision to drop out late last month, and ahead of his presumed Republican opponent in at least one recent poll. Several US senators have endorsed him and he has outpaced both Mills and Collins in fundraising as he's held standing-room-only town halls and rallies across the state, railing against oligarchy and President Donald Trump's attacks on immigrant communities and demanding a Medicare for All system and a tax on billionaires' wealth.
Auchincloss' comments suggested he hasn't noticed, or been moved by, the mounting evidence that Platner's campaign is resonating with Democratic voters—who numerous polls have shown are in agreement with the candidate on his demand for a government-funded universal healthcare system and his condemnation of the US government's unconditional support for Israel, as well as the pro-Israel lobby's massive influence on US politics in recent decades.
The Massachusetts lawmaker, meanwhile, appears increasingly out of step with the voters he hoped to sway with his comments.
In addition to opposing Medicare for All, in his state's delegation in the US House, Auchincloss is behind only one member—Rep. Katherine Clark (D)—in taking donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization that has long poured money into efforts to elect pro-Israel candidates on both sides of the aisle, but which is increasingly toxic among voters amid Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and Palestinian communities across the West Bank.
Some critics noted that Auchincloss' position as chairman of a group called Majority Democrats—which promises to "win and sustain Democratic majorities"—was decidedly out of line with encouraging voters to oppose the presumptive winner of the Democratic primary—set for June 9—in a state that's crucial for the party to win in November if it is to wrest control of the Senate from the GOP.
Helen Brosnan, national political director of United Auto Workers, accused Auchincloss of "hating a pro-labor, anti-establishment candidate so much that you root for a Republican to win and ensure we lose the Senate."
Adam Carlson of Zenith Polls wondered whether Auchincloss "still supports his organization’s stated mission," "why he wants Trump to have a Republican Senate majority for his final two years in office," and "why he wants Trump to be able to appoint more MAGA justices to the Supreme Court and federal bench."
And Ryan Grim of Drop Site News noted that Democratic Party leaders would be unlikely to tolerate such behavior if the shoe were on the other ideological foot.
"If a Democrat endorses from the left against another Democrat in a primary, all hell comes down on them," said Grim. "Here’s Rep. Auchincloss coming out against the presumptive Democratic nominee in a crucial swing state. Probably actually helps Platner to have Dems like Auchincloss against him, but I still wonder if he’ll hear from Dem leadership or if they’re quietly ok with Collins.
Auchincloss on Tuesday denied the accusation that his remarks served as an endorsement of Platner's presumed opponent in the general election, pointing to his "track record supporting Democrats to take back both chambers."
But he repeated that "if it were me I'd vote for someone else in the Maine Democratic primary."
The latest poll conducted before Mills suspended her campaign found her 35 points behind Platner. A survey taken in March also asked Mainers about two other lesser-known candidates: organizer Andrea LaFlamme, who is running a write-in campaign and was polling at 2%, and former government worker David Costello, who was polling at 1%.
Grim and others drew attention to a "highly qualified" candidate who is challenging Auchincloss in Massachusetts' Fourth District in the September 1 primary: artificial intelligence and policy researcher Jason Poulos, who supports Medicare for All, protecting workers from AI displacement, strengthening unions, regulating AI data centers, and canceling student debt.
On his campaign website, Poulos, who supports ending military support for Israel, has condemned Auchincloss for counting the pro-Israel lobby as his "top campaign funder."
"When a congressman’s single largest source of campaign funds comes from a lobbying network whose top financiers have poured $230 million into electing Donald Trump," the website states, "voters deserve to ask: Whose interests does he represent?"
The antiwar group CodePink it has yet to be served with any subpoenas after it was reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has opened an investigation into a recent humanitarian trip it helped organize to Cuba, but vehemently denied wrongdoing and said any government probe, if there is one, would only show that "this administration is beyond grotesque."
"Taking medical supplies to pediatric hospitals in Cuba is now a crime?" asked co-founder Medea Benjamin on social media on Saturday after Fox News reported that organizers had been served subpoenas. "Saving the lives of babies is a crime?"
Fox reported that Benjamin and left-wing commentator Hasan Piker had been subpoenaed by federal investigators two months after they were among 40 Americans who sailed to Havana on the Nuestra America Convoy, which carried 20 tons of humanitarian aid to the island nation.
The Fox reporting claimed the subpoenas issued to Benjamin and Piker seek to obtain financial, logistical, and communications information related to the trip, which was organized in response to the Trump administration's decision in late January to threaten to impose tariffs on any country that provided Cuba with oil.
The administration cut off Cuba's main source of fuel at the beginning of the year when it sent US troops into Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro and took control of the country's vast oil supply.
White House officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, have long desired regime change in the communist country, and rights advocates have warned the administration appears to be moving toward just that as it strangles the island's oil supply—causing frequent blackouts and impacting the healthcare and food systems—and claims the Cuban government poses a threat to the US.
In organizing the Nuestra America Convoy, said Benjamin on Sunday, the advocates were acting "as moral US citizens trying to bring some relief to a population being deliberately starved by the cruel policies of our own government."
"This policy has contributed to catastrophic shortages of medicine and electricity, massive blackouts, transportation collapse, and a public health crisis that has hurt the most vulnerable, especially children and the elderly," said Benjamin. "It is a policy that is, literally, killing babies, as we have seen in the recent tragic doubling of the infant mortality rate. This is why we focused our donations on medical supplies for pediatric hospitals."
The blockade is compounding the suffering caused by the trade embargo the US has imposed for decades, said Benjamin.
The Cuban Assets Control Regulations law prohibits US citizens from conducting unlicensed travel-related transations with Cuba, but the law makes exceptions for humanitarian endeavors and other activities aimed at supporting the Cuban people.
"We traveled to Cuba under the US government-authorized category of providing humanitarian aid to the Cuban people. We brought desperately needed medicines and medical supplies at a time when Cuba is suffering catastrophic shortages caused by the crippling US blockade," said Benjamin.
Benjamin, Piker, and Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim emphasized that the group stayed in Spanish-owned hotels that are "explicitly permitted under" the US law—while right-wing influencer Nick Shirley allegedly stayed in a sanctioned hotel on a recent trip to Cuba.
"It is outrageous that the US government would target people for bringing humanitarian aid to suffering Cuban children," Benjamin said. "But even more disturbing is the cruel and deeply immoral policy the United States continues to impose on Cuba—a policy designed to strangle the island economically, deprive people of food, fuel, medicine, and basic necessities, and make daily life unbearable."
Piker said the reports of the investigation indicate that "the American government would rather try to criminalize delivering aid to a country we’ve starved, than punish the Epstein class."
Benjamin emphasized that the reports of the probe come as the administration intensified its threats against Cuba, having indicted former President Raúl Castro last week on charges related to the shooting down of a plane operated by Cuban-American exiles in the 1990s. Trump and his allies have repeatedly mused about invading the country following his military attacks on Venezuela and Iran.
"President Trump already has his hands full trying to disentangle himself from the disastrous US war with Iran," said Benjamin. "He should not start another one in Cuba. The American people are tired of endless wars, interventions, sanctions, and suffering imposed in our name."
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."
The administration is currently setting up a facility in Kenya where US citizens will be not only monitored, but also treated, for Ebola in a major departure from previous responses.
In what one emergency physician and public health expert called “a dramatic abdication of what we owe our own,” the Trump administration is reportedly preparing to send Americans with suspected and confirmed cases of Ebola to a facility in Kenya, instead of repatriating them and treating them in the state-of-the-art quarantine and treatment facilities the US has for dangerous diseases that pose a threat to public health.
The facility is currently being set up, The New York Times reported, and several dozen Public Health Service officers—whose agency operates under the Department of Defense—are training to deploy to Kenya. The PHS also deployed to Liberia during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
"This is unbelievable and infuriating," said Dr. Craig Spencer, a professor of public health at Brown University.
According to the Times, the PHS officers in Kenya were initially going to monitor any Americans, such as healthcare workers who have gone to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to help contain the outbreak that was declared a public health emergency of international concern earlier this month. Those who showed symptoms would be transferred to European hospitals; at least seven Americans have been sent to facilities in Germany and the Czech Republic in recent weeks.
But two people familiar with the plans told the Times that the administration now plans to see to the patients' treatment in the Kanya facility as well.
"When Americans will need us most—especially those who go abroad to help end this outbreak at its source—the US government plans to send them to a hospital it is standing up from scratch in Kenya," wrote Spencer on Substack on Tuesday. "I find it incredibly difficult to believe that we can stand up a facility in the next few weeks—or even months—with the staff, the supplies, and the experience we’ve built over the past decade in more than a dozen hospitals across the US."
Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, who helped treat Ebola patients in Sierra Leone in 2014, said the plan does not make sense "from a preparedness, operational, or ethical standpoint."
"How are public health officers going to take care of persons who get sick?" said Kuppalli. "These are not persons who have experience in providing high levels of care for persons with this infection. Also, why would a PHS officer deploy knowing if they had an exposure that they wouldn’t be repatriated?"
Spencer raised concerns that the plan "could push people to hide potential exposures, or incentivize individuals or organizations to downplay those exposures. If you know that any 'high-risk' exposure will get you shipped to Kenya instead of sent home, it’s not hard to imagine people not being fully forthcoming about what may have happened to them. That is exactly backwards from how you contain a disease."
"This will also discourage Americans from joining as part of the response," he wrote. "I know of multiple healthcare providers who are considering deploying with humanitarian organizations, and we need a cavalry to help support the on-the-ground response if we have any hope of ending this outbreak. But programs and policies like this are exactly the reasons people will hesitate to sign up."
Spencer, who contracted Ebola after deploying to West Africa in 2014 and was quarantined and treated at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, emphasized that the strain of Ebola that began spreading in Ituri Province, DRC and is confirmed to have spread to Uganda does not have an approved treatment or vaccine.
"Survival depends heavily on the quality of the system and the people around you," wrote Spencer. "We have that system—I survived Ebola and am here today partly because of it—but we are choosing not to use it."
The news of the plan to send infected Americans to Kenya comes as suspected cases have ballooned to at least 906, according to the World Health Organization's (WHO) latest Weekly External Situation Report, released on Sunday. The report said there have been 223 suspected deaths from the current Ebola strain, which is caused by the Bundibugyo virus, as opposed to the Zaire strain, for which a vaccine and treatments have been approved. More than 100 cases and 10 deaths have been confirmed in DRC, while seven cases and one death have been confirmed in Uganda.
The report emphasized that following up with contacts of people who have developed Ebola symptoms is a "major challenge," with just 19.3% of contacts seen by health professionals within the previous 24 hours as of May 23.
"Constraints include insecurity, movement restrictions, highly mobile populations linked to mining communities, and
difficulties tracing contacts across dispersed and cross-border populations, as well as limited trained contact tracers to
date," reads the report.
Low levels of trust in the affected communities—a major impediment to an effective response—also appear to be raising the risk of transmission. As Reuters reported on Monday, at least three attacks on Ebola treatment facilities in the northeastern DRC have caused dozens of patients to flee the hospitals.
"The attackers are reportedly motivated by a desire for the hospitals to release the bodies of deceased Ebola patients for burial—unsafe given that the virus remains transmissible after death—or by suspicion or doubt about the virus," reported Reuters.
Dr. Richard Lokudu, medical director of the Mongbwalu General Referral Hospital in Ituri, told Reuters that "there is denial of the disease within the population."
While US Secretary of State Marco Rubio blamed WHO for being "a little late" to identify that outbreak, public health experts have pointed to the Trump administration's massive cuts to foreign assistance and global public health initiatives, including the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), as a major factor that likely allowed cases to spread for an extended period of time before international officials realized the outbreak was occurring.
As Common Dreams reported last week, USAID's Ebola prevention work was largely halted by the Department of Government Efficiency, run last year by tech billionaire Elon Musk—despite Musk's insistence that funding for Ebola efforts was maintained. USAID had more than 50 staffers dedicated to responding to and preparing for disease outbreaks like Ebola and Marburg virus, but DOGE's cuts reduced the workforce to about six people.
With Rubio insisting that "we can’t have Ebola cases" in the US and that keeping the disease out of US borders is the top priority for the country, the administration has invoked Title 42 to keep travelers from the DRC, Uganda, and neighboring South Sudan from entering the US if they were in any of the three countries in the previous 21 days. WHO has warned that travel bans and restrictions are not based in science.
Cuts at the CDC have also led the agency to put out a call to its workforce, seeking volunteers to conduct public health screenings at airports.
The State Department said last week it had mobilized about $23 million to help the DRC and Uganda respond to the outbreak and is "mobilizing CDC staff and resources."
But Spencer said Sunday that the administration's travel bans and focus on keeping those affected by Ebola out of US borders are "a policy you put in place when you have nothing else meaningful to add. It gives the appearance of doing ‘something’ while effectively doing nothing of value at all. And it takes away attention from where the real problem is."
“By safeguarding these deep-sea ecosystems within a global network of ocean sanctuaries and establishing a moratorium on deep sea mining, we can create a resilient safety net for marine life, and protect the health of our global oceans for generations to come."
Aided by a sophisticated underwater submersible, activists with Greenpeace on Wednesday set a world record for the deepest protest ever by displaying a banner 1.4 miles beneath the surface of the Arctic Ocean to oppose industrial deep-sea mining and urging protection of the world's oceans.
According to the international environmental group, the message "LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE!" was displayed 2,315 meters below sea level using a remotely operated vehicle called ‘ROV Holly.’
Executed during a deep-water survey expedition between Iceland and the island of Svalbard, the robotic hand of the submersible held up the sign in front of a hydrothermal vent field known as Loki’s Castle, which is located along the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge that separates the Arctic Ocean's Greenland Sea from the Norwegian Sea.
"This marks the deepest banner protest in history, to speak for ecosystems that have no voice of their own," said Dr. Sandra Schöttner, chief scientist for the Deep Arctic Expedition at Greenpeace International. "World leaders have already promised to protect 30 percent of the oceans, now they must listen to the science and actually do it. We cannot meet our global goals if we also allow industrial exploitation of unexplored and vulnerable ecosystems in the deep sea. It is high time that leaders keep their promises and give the oceans a chance to recover.”
The Arctic Mid Ocean Arctic Ridge—which the group characterized as "one of Earth's least known wildernesses"—goes down to depths of up to 3000 meters. The expedition and historic protest is part of a Greenpeace campaign that is calling for the deep-sea world of hydrothermal vents like Loki's Castle and others, as well as seamounts and the "extraordinary creatures" that live in such ecosystems to be protected with the establishment of a network of marine sanctuaries.
“By safeguarding these deep-sea ecosystems within a global network of ocean sanctuaries and establishing a moratorium on deep sea mining," said Dr. Schöttner, "we can create a resilient safety net for marine life, and protect the health of our global oceans for generations to come."
Efforts to ban deep-sea mining by environmentalists, ocean stewards, and conservationists were stymied in the US with an executive order last year issued by President Donald Trump which seeks to bolster and expand the practice by the mining industry.
Trump was condemned for the move, which Greenpeace at the time called "an insult to multilateralism" due to its sidestepping of a UN-backed process designed to protect the oceans, and "a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry.”
Trump's failures, however, have been counteracted at some level by other nations who have paused or put stronger protections in place when it comes to deep-sea mining. In December, Norway paused controversial plans to issue a fresh round of drilling and mining license beneath undersea areas it controls.
As part of its ongoing campaign to curb the destructive practice, Greenpeace is calling on world leaders to honor existing global climate targets, implement the UN Ocean Treaty to protect 30% of the global ocean by 2030, and establish an immediate moratorium on deep-sea mining.
“There is no version of seabed mining that is sustainable or safe,” Greenpeace Aotearoa campaigner Juressa Lee said last year. “Alongside our allies who want to protect the ocean for future generations, we will continue to say a loud and bold no to miners who want to strip the seafloor for their profit.”
"I do not think we should be creating a fund for people that commit physical violence against law enforcement," said US Rep. Mike Flood.
A Republican congressman on Tuesday tried to distance himself from President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund after being grilled about it at a town hall appearance.
During the town hall, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) was asked for his opinion about the fund, which was created by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) as a "settlement" for Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the 2019 leaking of his federal tax returns.
As constructed, the fund is set up to pay Trump allies who have been prosecuted for assorted criminal offenses, including the violent storming of the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021.
Flood was quick to state that he never voted to approve the fund, while emphasizing that "I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6th insurrectionist that was in the Capitol on January 6, 2021."
"I do not think we should be creating a fund for people that commit physical violence against law enforcement," Flood added.
The crowd applauded the congressman in response.
GOP Rep. Mike Flood is clearly not happy about the anti-weaponization fund, but says he will follow Senate Rs on oversight issues
“I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6th insurrectionist that was in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.” pic.twitter.com/QzhrLQQTXt
— Matt Rice (@matt____rice) May 26, 2026
According to a Tuesday CNN report, Flood throughout the event was jeered by constituents, who pelted him with questions not only about the Trump slush fund, but the war with Iran and the president's proposed luxury ballroom, for which he is seeking $1 billion in taxpayer funding.
Flood is far from the only Republican squeamish about Trump's slush fund, as even GOP hardliners have expressed reservations.
During an episode of his "Verdict" podcast last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) revealed that Republican senators erupted in fury when acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to justify the fund during a luncheon.
"Fiery does not begin to cut it,” Cruz said of the meeting. “My guess is there are probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed. There were multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing.”