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.
Living in not just the bleakest but dumbest timeline, we must now witness the "off the charts clownfuckery" that is the spectacle of quivering, grown-ass Trump lackeys faithfully, fearfully shuffling around the halls of power in his fave "old-man-from-Queens" shoes - most ill-sized - foisted on them in some weird submission ritual by a sociopath with daddy issues. What he evidently doesn't know: A. They're made in China, B. Their company is suing him for his illegal tariffs. Up next: Kim Jong Un haircuts for all.
The latest manifestation of Trump's petty megalomania came to light when astute observers noticed that first Lil Marco Rubio, then other White House buffoons were sporting the same often-too-large shoes, which all turned out to be the $145, black oxford Florsheims regularly worn and touted by Trump. In a cringe origin story recounted by cringe JD Vance, the Favorite Florsheims Saga began at a December meeting in the Oval Bordello when Trump, always laser-focused, began staring at people’s feet and abruptly declared, "You guys have shitty shoes." He asked their shoe sizes. He (likely) ignored/forgot them. The shoes started arriving. He mercilessly badgered them: "Did you get the shoes?" And the dutiful flunkies, having already "left their manhood pickled in a golden jar on Trump’s desk," took on the latest indignity of clomping around in their sadist dad's shoes.
Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, Duffy, Lutnick, Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity. "All the boys have them,” said a female White House official. "It's hysterical, because everybody’s afraid not to wear them." Beware Trump bearing gifts: Armchair analysts took the shoe pageantry and ran with it. It's an ugly game of subjugation, an abuser's way of exhibiting dominance over minions like the belligerent handshake, belittling nicknames, savage put-downs if any inferior dares to question or stray. It's a piece of "exquisite and complex satire" about the juvenile male anxiety over penis size. It's a humiliation ritual by a small, hollow, clueless, malignant narcissist with "a black hole of insecurity for a dog shit soul" whose only vestige of sense of self is divulged in a vulgar, outlandish brand - fake hair, fake tan, golf cap, red tie, beloved archaic "mall shoes" - he flaunts before his cowering vassals.
Historically, it's also a classic move by totalitarian leaders intent on establishing political and psychological fealty. See Mao jackets, Heil Hitlers, Stalin humiliating the clumsy Khrushchev by making him dance at his parties, Trump's Cabinet meetings become groveling, ring-and-ass-kissing circle jerks. Shoes can be a potent symbol in a performance: Khrushchev, in power, banging his shoe at the UN to punctuate his threat, "We will bury you"; an Iraqi protester hurling one, then two, in Arab culture "ritually unclean" shoes at Bush - who deftly dodged - at a Baghdad presser to show ultimate contempt; clowns of any variety, circus to MAGA, rendered most foolish in flapping massive flotsam. Imagine preening Pete Hegseth, who just banned un-hot photos of himself, with his tight suits and he-man Nazi tattoos, squeezed into or swimming in sloppy clunkers.
Adding insult to injury for these lame heroes of the manosphere, Florsheims are deeply uncool, "a brand you last saw when you were cleaning out your dead grandpa’s room and they were under his bed." Like most things, they're also the brainchild of immigrants, launched in Chicago in 1892 by German immigrant Sigmund Florsheim and his eldest son Milton. At its peak through two World Wars, a $5 pair of "genuine Florsheims" reportedly sold every 4 seconds; a timely gag in the great Chinatown, set in 1937, has Jack Nicholson's Jake Gittes wading through diverted muddy water and scowling, "Goddamn Florsheims!" Its website boasts of "a reputation for being at the forefront of the newest trends while staying true to a legacy (of) quality craftsmanship"; in truth, they're now mostly found in downscale shopping malls and discount stores, struggling to escape a rep as relics of the past.
Today, Florsheim's belongs to parent company Weyco Group Inc. Unsurprisingly - so much again for the Klan-redolent "America First" mantra - they're made overseas in India, China, Cambodia, Dominican Republic. They seem to have a reasonably modern (sorry, "woke") worldview, with Black models and a Sustainability In Action program. And they're suing Trump - atypically, not just multiple federal agencies, but Trump himself - seeking refunds plus interest for the "unprecedented power grab" of his unlawful, unilaterally levied tariffs "without notice, public comment or Congressional authorization." SCOTUS already struck them down last month, citing the possible "mess" of upcoming "refunds of billions of dollars"; on March 4, a U.S. Trade Court judge basically said have at it when he ordered the regime to start paying those ill-begotten billions.
For now, the case is stayed. But many other companies are demanding their money back, and so is a coalition of two dozen states. As the pitchforks come out, online wags stay busy devising shoe puns: toeing the line, holding your tongue, comments laced with wit, heels with no soles, an ad for Sieg Heels: "Nobody puts the step in goosestep like Sieg Heels!” Meanwhile, our Führer's debased lickspittles stumble across the world stage, tripping on their own moral cowardice en route to the apocalypse. They need to remember Solzhenitsyn’s elemental advice in Gulag Archipelago: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding." Or, God forbid, flapping their fucking, war-mongering, world-razing clown shoes.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
From declaring an energy emergency and ditching global climate initiatives to abducting the Venezuelan leader to seize control of the country's nationalized oil industry, President Donald Trump has taken various actions to serve his fossil fuel donors since returning to power last year. Now, his and Israel's war on Iran could soon lead to US liquefied natural gas giants pocketing tens of billions in windfall profits.
"The Persian Gulf has some of the world's largest oil and gas producers," Oil Change International research co-director Lorne Stockman explained in a Tuesday blog post, "and a large proportion of that production, around 20% of global petroleum, must pass through a relatively narrow corridor controlled by Iran to reach global markets: the Strait of Hormuz," between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Stockman—whose advocacy group works to expose the costs of fossil fuels and facilitate a just transition to clean energy—noted that "crude oil, refined petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) traverse the strait in vast quantities every day. But not since Saturday. With missiles, fighter jets, and drones circling, shipping has ground to a halt, and Iran reportedly threatened to close the strait by force on Monday."
As the conflict in the Persian Gulf continues, fossil fuel companies are preparing for record-breaking profits while billions of people face soaring energy bills and "energy poverty."We’re tired of a world where our energy system fuels war and destroys our climate. oilchange.org/blogs/trumps...
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) March 4, 2026 at 4:43 AM
Based on ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic, Reuters estimated Wednesday that "at least 200 ships, including oil and liquefied natural gas tankers as well as cargo ships, remained at anchor in open waters off the coast of major Gulf producers including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar," and "hundreds of other vessels remained outside Hormuz unable to reach ports."
Stockman warned that "depending on how long the violence and its atrocious human toll continues—Trump said it may take weeks until his undefined objectives are achieved—this will have huge implications for energy markets. Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar."
Since Trump and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu launched "Operation Epic Fury" on Saturday, over 1,000 people had been killed as of Wednesday, according to the Iranian government, and oil prices have surged—highlighting how, as Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen put it earlier this week, "as long as our world runs on oil and gas, our peace, security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics."
Qatar exports about 20% of the global LNG supply, second only to the United States. All of that LNG goes through the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian drone attack on Monday targeted Qatari LNG facilities, leading state-owned QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on exports. Two unnamed sources told Reuters that QE "will fully shut down gas liquefaction on Wednesday," and "it may take at least a month to return to normal production volumes."
The Qatari shutdown is expected to boost the US LNG industry, which exported about 108 million metric tons last year. Already, shares of the two largest LNG producers in the United States, Cheniere and Venture Global, have surged.
"We've got an acute contraction of global LNG supply," Alex Munton, an expert on natural gas markets at consulting firm Rapidan Energy, told CNBC. "The world is now down 20% from where it was, and that leaves the world short."
As CNBC reported Tuesday:
US producers can't ramp LNG production beyond current levels, Munton said. "They're basically running at capacity," he said.
But since their customer contracts don't have fixed destinations, they can reroute LNG to meet demand, he said. The flexible capacity at US LNG producers like Venture and Cheniere plays a crucial role in moments of crisis, the analyst said. It's a unique feature of the US LNG industry, he added.
"The volumes are able to reroute to where the demand is greatest," Munton said. "We saw this in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, Europe was left short, and it was able to call on US LNG and utilize the inherent flexibility of US LNG.
US LNG cannot replace lost supply from Qatar, but buyers who really need the gas and are willing to pay a high enough price will get it, Munton said.
Seb Kennedy, the energy journalist and market analyst behind the newsletter Energy Flux, estimated Wednesday that "American LNG exports could generate up to $4 billion in windfall profits if the force majeure remains in effect for one month. This figure could rise as high as $20 billion per month if the market is deprived of Qatari supply until the summer."
"Over the first four months, US LNG profits could reach more than $33 billion above the pre-Iran average. Over eight months, that figure rises to $108 billion," he continued. "And if, in an extreme scenario, Qatari LNG is shut-in for a full year, the excess profits raining down on US LNG exports could stack up to almost $170 billion—a figure that would represent one of the most concentrated commodity windfalls of the post-2000 era."
"To put that in context, the 12-month Ukraine war windfall accruing to US LNG exporters, from August 2021 through August 2022, is estimated at $84 billion," Kennedy noted. "Iran could, in certain circumstances, eclipse that total in just over six months."
My latest for Energy Flux:💥 War profits, quantified 💥As Middle East regional war upends global gas markets, US LNG exporters stand to pocket a multi-billion-dollar windfallCheck it out 👉 www.energyflux.news/war-profits...
[image or embed]
— Seb Kennedy (@sebkennedy.bsky.social) March 4, 2026 at 11:58 AM
As the US Senate prepared for a vote on a war powers resolution that is not expected to pass but would swiftly halt Trump's assault on Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war could last at least eight weeks. He also announced that an American submarine fired a torpedo that sank an Iranian naval ship off the coast of Sri Lanka.
On Tuesday, Trump had responded to Iran's attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with a post on his Truth Social platform: "Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines. If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH—More actions to come."
However, as the New York Times highlighted Wednesday, "shipping company officials and analysts are skeptical" of Trump's promised fixes, and "some industry executives also worried how quickly these could get up and running."
For example, Helima Croft, the global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, wrote to clients on Tuesday that "we think the insurance proposal is likely in a concepts-of-a-plan stage," and she questioned whether there are enough US naval assets in the region to actually provide escorts.
It's been two weeks since Big Tech companies gathered at the White House to sign a nonbinding pledge saying they will not pass on higher utility costs to consumers as the rapid build-out of energy-intensive artificial intelligence data centers sends electricity bills skyrocketing—but polling out Wednesday showed a majority of Americans reject President Donald Trump's plan to leave corporations responsible for tackling the affordability crisis.
Those same companies, said most respondents to a survey by Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative, are responsible for higher costs that have hit households across the country, and can't be trusted to ensure life is more affordable for families.
Instead, said 61% of respondents, "cracking down on price gouging" from both utility and energy companies would be the most effective way to lower the cost of electricity. In comparison, just 35% said building more energy infrastructure to meet demands was the answer to high costs.
While Trump has been forced in recent weeks to acknowledge that "energy demands from AI data centers could unfairly drive up" people's energy costs, as he admitted in his State of the Union address while announcing AI companies would sign his "ratepayer protection pledge," the president has largely deflected blame regarding the affordability crisis—or denied its existence altogether.
Trump claimed at a rally in Kentucky last week that "the economy is roaring back," even as his $1 billion-per-day, unprovoked war on Iran inflamed tensions across the Middle East and drove up oil prices.
Groundwork said in its analysis of the poll that following Trump's announcement of the ratepayer protection pledge, "Americans reject this reliance on corporations to do the right thing."
Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy for Groundwork Collaborative, said that "utility prices are up and consumers know the truth: These price increases are being driven by corporate greed and unchecked AI data center growth."
Trump has pushed to accelerate the construction of new data centers by fast-tracking the permitting process.
Two-thirds of those surveyed said their monthly electricity payments have gone up in the past year, with nearly a quarter of respondents saying they had increased by "a lot." More than 40% of people said they are now paying between $101-$200 per month for electricity.
As Common Dreams reported last November, Trump's demand for AI companies to build massive, energy-sucking data centers in communities across the US has been linked to rising costs of consumers, with the average overdue balance on utility bills surging by 32% in the last three years and states with high concentrations of AI data centers seeing electricity prices skyrocket by as much as 16% from 2024-25.
Sixty percent of respondents told Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative that the energy demand of large commercial users like AI data centers is to blame for higher consumer prices, and the same percentage of people also blamed high compensation for utility company executives. Sixty-three percent of those polled said high profits for utility companies and their investors were to blame.
Joint Economic Committee Democrats revealed Tuesday that the average annual US electric bill increased by $110 last year.
A 2022 analysis by Accountable.US found that the nine largest US energy utility companies raked in nearly $14 billion in combined profits in the first three quarters of that year and handed out $11 billion to shareholders while tens of millions of households struggled with rising utility bills.
Nearly 60% of the 1,149 people polled by the two progressive think tanks also said the public sector must take a leadership role on providing energy, "because the public sector doesn't collect profits and can pass on savings to customers," and 60% said the public sector should be responsible for upgrading and modernizing the electric grid because it is a "public resource that should serve all Americans equally, not generate profits for shareholders."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy for Groundwork and a former Biden administration official, said the poll revealed that "the people believe in public power."
The groups also polled respondents on their opinions of "energy superusers," including cryptocurrency companies, AI data centers, and AI firms.
Crypto companies were the least popular, with 54% disapproving compared to 26% who approved. Voters disapproved of AI data centers by a 16-point margin and AI companies in general by an 8-point margin.
Nearly two-thirds said they believe new AI data centers would raise their energy costs, and voters across the political spectrum opposed new data centers in their communities.
Grassroots efforts have taken off in states including Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Jersey as community members have rejected the construction of data centers on the grounds that they would consume massive amounts of water as well as electricity, threaten jobs, and take up space that could otherwise be used for affordable housing and small businesses.
"Voters feel ripped off by the corporations who hold their utilities hostage and are calling on lawmakers to put an end to the profiteering racket," said Pancotti. "It’s time for regulators and policymakers to answer the call to protect working families from predatory utility corporations and Big Tech.”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee failed on Tuesday to secure wins in the two Illinois US House primaries it invested the most money in, the latest electoral flop for the pro-Israel lobbying organization whose brand has become increasingly noxious to Democratic voters amid Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
In Illinois' 7th and 9th Congressional Districts, AIPAC spent millions backing Chicago treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who finished second, and Democratic State Sen. Laura Fine, who finished third. In the latter race, AIPAC pivoted from initially attacking Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss—who ultimately won—to concentrate on defeating Justice Democrats-backed Kat Abughazaleh.
AIPAC, which faced backlash for trying to conceal its spending in the Illinois contests using shell organizations, tried to spin the 9th Congressional District results as a win, despite spending more against Biss than against Abughazaleh.
"Though Kat narrowly lost this race, we are proud to have backed this campaign that helped ensure the people of IL-09 would not be represented by another AIPAC shill," Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, said in a statement. "This outcome is a massive loss for AIPAC as they lose more and more influence within the Democratic Party. No amount of shell PACs or covert funding can hide their toxicity from Democratic voters, their monopoly over this party’s agenda is coming to an end.”
Two AIPAC-backed candidates did prevail Tuesday: Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the 2nd Congressional District and former Rep. Melissa Bean in the 8th Congressional District.
AIPAC's mixed results came amid broad alarm over outside spending that flooded Tuesday's midterm primary elections in Illinois, driven by pro-Israel, crypto, and AI special interest groups. Overall, more than $92 million was spent on campaign ads in Tuesday's contests in Illinois, a state record.
"I think we can safely say that almost $100 million spent in a handful of primaries is a full-spectrum disaster for democracy," wrote David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, which called the torrent of spending "a corruption of democracy that is relatively unprecedented in modern elections."
The National Journal reported Tuesday that when the national midterm cycle is over, "the price tag for the Illinois primary will be an important footnote in what’s projected to be the most expensive midterm election ever."
"The nonpartisan research firm AdImpact estimates that more than $10.8 billion will be spent on ads alone this cycle," the Journal observed. "Even as the competitive map gets smaller, the price tag keeps increasing as more outside deep-pocketed groups invest more in primaries."
Super PACs, entities that can spend unlimited sums boosting their preferred candidates, pumped roughly $31 million into Tuesday's US House primaries in Illinois. AIPAC-linked organizations accounted for around $22 million of the total.
"It’s time to kick AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs out of Democratic primaries," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote ahead of Tuesday's races.
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."
As the Trump administration sows chaos with a crushing fuel blockade of Cuba, a general told Congress that the military will "set up a camp" at Guantánamo Bay to detain those who try to flee the humanitarian crisis inflicted by the United States.
The phrase "humanitarian crisis" was used by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to describe the situation in Cuba during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, as he questioned US Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, the commander of the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
Donovan, a 37-year Marine veteran, took command of SOUTHCOM in February after being tapped by President Donald Trump. His predecessor, Adm. Alvin Holsey, abruptly resigned in December reportedly after he'd raised concerns about the Trump administration's bombings of alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean, which have been widely described as illegal under international law.
On Thursday, Cotton asked Donovan, "Are we prepared for any kind of humanitarian crisis in Cuba—the possible flow of refugees, other civil disorder that may threaten our interests, especially if the decrepit, corrupt Castro regime finally falls or flees?"
"Senator, yes we are," Donovan responded. "SOUTHCOM... We have an [executive] order to be prepared to support [the Department of Homeland Security] (DHS) in a mass migration event. They would take the lead, we would follow."
Donovan said this would include using the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, "where we would set up a camp to deal with those migrants or any overflow from any situation in Cuba itself."
Trump signed an executive order during his first month in office last year directing DHS and the Pentagon to “expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to full capacity," which the administration said meant scaling the facility up to more than 30,000 beds.
The base, which houses a prison infamous for the extrajudicial torture of detainees during the global War on Terror, was designated under Trump's order to hold "high‑priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”
But Donovan suggested it may now be used to hold Cubans fleeing chaos and deprivation following Trump's own acts of economic warfare.
Cotton's question followed a warning that same day from Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of a "possible mass exodus out of Cuba," which experienced an island-wide electricity blackout earlier this week following the Trump administration's blockade of fuel entering the island, which a group of UN rapporteurs said in January was “a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order.”
DeSantis, whose state is home to about 1.6 million Cuban-Americans, said, "[W]e don’t want to see a massive armada of people showing up on the shores of the Florida Keys."
He said he believed the Trump administration "would rather see people in Florida go help… hopefully get a new government going" in Cuba, possibly referring to the long-held hope of some right-wing Cuban exiles to take over the island.
Following more than 60 years of an embargo that has strangled Cuba's economic development, the Trump administration tightened the noose even more in January, signing an executive order that would slap harsh tariffs on any country that provides oil to Cuba.
As a result of the blockade, explained Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, "people don’t have reliable access to drinking water, hospitals can’t operate safely, basic goods are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and garbage is piling up in the streets.”
Trump first described his blockade as part of an effort to carry out regime change against Cuba's Communist Party leadership, but this week, he made the imperialist declaration that he may seek to outright "take" the island and that he could "do anything I want" with the "weakened nation."
Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, emphasized that the possible "mass migration event" described by Donovan was only coming "as the US starves Cuba of energy and food."
"Trump and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio are to blame for any refugee crisis from Cuba, as the US intentionally harms civilians with an oil blockade," said Just Foreign Policy in a social media post responding to Republican warnings of Cuban mass migration. "US sanctions and meddling in Latin America have always been a leading cause of migrant flows."
Immigration journalist Arturo Dominguez explained that "What [Donovan] essentially said was, 'We're ready to accommodate the flow of refugees by putting them in camps.'" He added that "the way these military goons jump right in to 'accommodate' atrocity is beyond the pale."
Trump's blockade of Cuba is unpopular with the American public, according to a YouGov poll released earlier this week. Just 28% of adult US citizens said they approved of the US blocking oil shipments to the country, while 46% said they opposed it. The same survey found that just 13% want the US to use military force to attack Cuba, while 61% would oppose it.
Just Foreign Policy said, "The American people do not want their government to starve Cubans and cause a 'mass migration event.'"
"This is what they did before they abducted Maduro," said one observer.
The US Department of Justice has reportedly launched multiple drug trafficking investigations into Colombian President Gustavo Petro—a leftist and staunch critic of President Donald Trump—just over two months after dropping a key yet fictitious allegation against Venezuela's kidnapped leader.
"Three people with knowledge of the matter" told The New York Times on Friday that the US Attorney's offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations in concert with "prosecutors who focus on international narcotics trafficking," the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Investigators are reportedly probing whether Petro met with any drug traffickers or if his presidential campaign solicited donations from them. The sources told the Times that the probes are in their early states and it is unclear whether any criminal charges would be filed.
The Times noted that "there was nothing to indicate that the White House had a role in initiating either investigation."
However, Trump has shown exceptional zeal for weaponizing the government to target his political foes and has repeatedly accused Petro—who has been a vocal critic of US imperialism, high-seas boat bombings, and support for Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—of being a drug trafficker.
Trump has offered no evidence to support his allegations against Petro. The US, on the other hand, has a centuries-long history of involvement in drug trafficking, from China to Southeast Asia to Central America—and Colombia, where the CIA allegedly worked with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a far-right paramilitary group founded by drug lords to combat leftist insurgents during the country's decadeslong civil war.
As a sitting head of state, Petro has immunity from US jurisdiction while in office. But that did not stop Trump from bombing and invading Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The DOJ charged Venezuela's president with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
The DOJ has quietly dropped its "made-up" allegation against Maduro—that he was the kingpin of the "Cartel de los Soles"—after learning that the name is a slang phrase and not an actual criminal group.
After kidnapping Maduro, Trump told Petro to "watch his ass."
Last October, the US Treasury Department sanctioned Petro and his wife, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying at the time that Colombia's leader "has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity."
This, after the US State Department revoked Petro's visa after he used his September 2025 United Nations General Assembly address to accuse Trump of complicity in the Gaza genocide and urged the UN to open a criminal case against the US leader for his extrajudicial bombing of boats allegedly transporting drugs from South America to the United States. Petro also implored US troops to "not point your rifles against humanity."
Some observers say Trump may try to leverage the probe of Petro to pressure him into greater cooperation with the failed but ongoing 55-year War on Drugs. Colombia is the world's leading cocaine producer whose previous right-wing governments were staunch US allies during and after the Cold War.
According to the Times:
At the same time, Colombian news outlets have reported that people linked to traffickers have tried to channel funds to Mr. Petro, including through his son. His son admitted that illicit money entered his father’s 2022 election campaign, Colombian prosecutors said, but they have not brought criminal charges against Mr. Petro himself. He has denied wrongdoing, describing the accusations as politically motivated.
Others speculate that Trump may be trying to put his finger on the scale of Colombia's May 31 election. As Colombia's Constitution limits presidents to a single term, Petro has urged his supporters to vote for leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda. Trump has forged close ties with right-wing governments across Latin America, recently hosting his Shield of the America's summit in Miami and meddling in elections from Honduras to Chile to Argentina.
Relations between Trump and Petro seemed to have been improving. When Petro visited the White House last month for his first face-to-face meeting with Trump, many observers braced themselves for fireworks. However, Trump emerged from the meeting calling it "terrific." He even signed a copy of his ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal, for Petro, writing, "You are great" on the title page.
Petro, in turn, posted a photo Trump gifted him of the two men shaking hands, and a handwritten message saying, "Gustavo: A great honor—I love Colombia."
"Written by Big Tech, for Big Tech," said Rep. Yvette Clarke of the Trump administration proposal.
The Trump administration on Friday released its national policy framework for regulating artificial intelligence, and critics said it gave Silicon Valley a massive gift by coming out in favor of barring state regulation of the technology.
Specifically, Big Tech critics pointed to the framework's recommendation that the federal government preempt state laws regulating AI that could otherwise "act contrary to the United States’ national strategy to achieve global AI dominance."
"States should not be permitted to regulate AI development," the framework stated, "because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications."
The Trump administration's paper also argued that states "should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI" and "should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, slammed the AI policy framework, which he said appeared designed "to protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans."
"Trump’s AI framework is a hollow document with only one tough and meaningfully binding provision, delivering Big Tech’s top policy priority: It aims to preempt all state laws and rules dealing with AI," said Weissman. "Preemption would effectively mean no US regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place—and this framework would impose no additional standards of consequence."
Weissman added that while states' actions to regulate AI are inadequate, they are at least "trying to meet the novel and enormous challenges of the moment," which "is exactly why Big Tech wants to shut down their efforts."
Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, called the White House's preemption of state AI laws a mistake, predicting that it would lead to even worse problems than the ones created by unregulated social media over the past two decades.
"I think it's like this: if you think the current state of play in social media guardrails are A-OK, then you'll be fine with the framework," he wrote. "If—like most—you believe we made catastrophic mistakes re social media, then you should fervently oppose this vacuous 'framework.'"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) singled out the proposed ban on state AI regulations as a particularly troubling aspect of the framework.
"The White House National AI Policy Framework reinforces the Trump administration’s commitment to preempting state-level AI laws without the establishment of clear, enforceable federal guardrails to address the urgent risks posed by AI systems," he wrote. "It even seeks to limit congressional regulatory action. But until federal action ensures safe and responsible AI development, deployment, and use, states must retain the ability to implement policies to protect the American public."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, argued that the Trump AI framework should be one of the first things a future Democratic president throws in the garbage after taking office.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) delivered a pithy analysis of the White House framework, describing it as being "written by Big Tech, for Big Tech."
New data released by KFF underscores how "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course remains an urgent prerogative for the nation," said one physician and advocate.
About 24.3 million Americans were enrolled in healthcare plans within the Affordable Care Act marketplace last year, but a survey released Thursday by KFF found that about 1 in 10 of those people had no choice but to make a difficult and risky calculation at the end of 2025 when ACA subsidies expired due to Republicans' refusal to support an extension.
According to the research, 9% of people enrolled in plans under the marketplace last year are now uninsured, having dropped their coverage—and costs were a deciding factor for the vast majority of those who left the marketplace.
The expiration of the enhanced tax credits sent premiums skyrocketing by an average of 114%, according to KFF.
The decision was unavoidable for one 54-year-old man in Texas, who told KFF simply, "Without the subsidy, I cannot afford the premium payments.”
A 56-year-old woman in Illinois said her income was too high last year to qualify for subsidies, but the increase in cost this year was "so high even for those without subsidies."
"I simply cannot afford to pay $1,200 a month for insurance," she said. "It used to be high premiums meant low deductibles and copays, but not anymore. This is ridiculous. $1,200 for a healthy person, and an $8,000 deductible. Really?”
A Florida resident named Kelly Rose told The Wall Street Journal that the $1,700 monthly premium she was quoted for an ACA plan would have been more than her mortgage. She missed the enrollment window for health coverage through her job at a bank—assuming her ACA plan would cost less—and is now uninsured and relying on a Canadian pharmacy to get her asthma medication, which would cost $800 per month without insurance in the US.
Cynthia Cox, a senior vice president at KFF, told the Journal that the survey results were “about on target” what the health policy research group had expected last year when the subsidy expiration was looming and Democrats were demanding that the GOP vote with them to extend the tax credits.
“Not only is there significant coverage loss, but there could be more to come,” Cox said.
An estimated 25 million Americans are uninsured, said Harvard Medical School professor and former Physicians for a National Health Plan president Adam Gaffney—a fact he called "abhorrent" as he suggested the new data makes the latest case for "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course," or an expansion of the Medicare program to the entire US population.
That proposal, which has been introduced in Congress numerous times by lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), would put the US in line with the healthcare systems of other wealthy nations, improve healthcare outcomes, and save an estimated $650 billion per year.
A poll released late last year by Data for Progress found that 65% of likely US voters supported "creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called ‘Medicare for All,’ that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans."
The fact that millions of Americans have chosen to opt out of the country's for-profit health insurance system—putting their health and finances at risk—is representative of "a profound hollowing-out and weakening of America," said writer and markets researcher Ben Hunt.
The economic justice campaign Unrig Our Economy emphasized that Republicans' cuts to healthcare last year—via the expiration of the subsidies and slashes to Medicaid—put an estimated 15 million Americans at risk of losing health coverage.
“Republicans knew that healthcare tax credits were critical to helping millions of Americans afford their health insurance, but they chose to get rid of them to fund more tax breaks for their billionaire buddies,” said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. “Costs are higher, millions are without insurance, and working Americans are having to make sacrifices just to afford basic healthcare—and they know that Republicans are to blame. It’s time Republicans finally started listening to their constituents and fixing the healthcare crisis they created.”
KFF's polling also found that among people who still have health insurance under the ACA, higher premiums and deductibles have left a majority concerned that they wouldn't be able to afford emergency care even with their coverage. Nearly half of respondents said they were worried that even routine medical care will be unaffordable this year with their ACA plans.
Due to Republican attacks, the cost of coverage offered by the program is now forcing 55% of people using the ACA to cut back on spending money on food, household items, and clothing in order to afford it. Forty-three percent said they are trying to find another job or extra income to afford healthcare payments, and nearly a quarter said they are skipping or delaying payments on other bills to afford their health coverage.
More than half of people polled by KFF said they blame Republicans in Congress for their rising healthcare costs.
"Americans are blaming them because it’s true," said Unrig Our Economy. "Congressional Republicans’ massive cuts to health care have put a projected 15 million Americans at risk of losing health insurance and left millions more struggling to keep up with rising costs. Republicans made these cuts all so they could give more tax breaks to billionaires and corporations."