

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.
In the second week of an inept narcissist's spiraling war - not even of choice but of whim - that's killed over 2,000 people and wreaked widespread havoc, almost as grotesque as the witless carnage itself is the "slopaganda" issuing almost daily from a White House evidently run by 14-year-old gamers who splice real combat footage with Call of Duty-esque video games to create banal war porn celebrating "JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY." Millions of us wanna know: "What the fuck is wrong with you people?
"Under Trump we will have no more wars - I am peace," once intoned the hollow reality-show specter now spreading mindless death, terror and economic mayhem across 12 countries. To date, US and Israeli airstrikes have killed perhaps 2,000 people in Iran, mostly civilians, including over 300 children, the youngest an 8-month-old girl; at least 12,000 Iranians have been injured. Also dead are at least 400 people in Lebanon, over 50 in surrounding countries, and 8 US service members. Bombs have struck at least four schools in Tehran; after strikes this week on oil refineries and storage facilities, Tehran residents woke to plumes of dark smoke and black rain falling in what many viewed as a genocidal attack on infrastructure that mirrors that of Gaza.
It's clear from Trump's flailing rhetoric he didn't expect or plan for a war, just a fast, hard, "kill their leader and they fold" move like Venezuela (which is def not Iran) so they could pick a pliable new leader. But everything he touches dies: After sloppily killing all their own choices for successors, they instead got the far more extremist, angrier son Mojtaba Khamenei, 56, a hardliner with close ties to Iran's most ideologically rabid, repressive clerics - and, after Trump's blithe assertion he'll kill him too, with nothing to lose. The outcome, deemed "the blueprint for a generational blood war," also pissed off rich Gulf states who've been courting him with investment pledges. One Dubai oligarch "at the heart of a danger (we) did not choose": “Who gave you the authority to drag our region into a war?”
The slapdash incompetence of his "short-term little excursion" quickly exposed an erratic take on what he actually called his "performance" not governance, more improv than strategy. The rationale kept shifting - no nuclear weapons, people free, regime change - as did the language: A "47-year-conflict" became an "imminent threat." ("Words, what are they for?") The promise Iranians' "future is yours to take" became a demand for imaginary "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" He bounced ideas off journalists, was surprised neighboring states got drawn in, ignored likely consequences - what oil? - had no contingency plans and rebuffed allies: To the UK's offer of help: "We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!” Despite all his professed "reasons," most voters still think he made a war to deflect from a pedophile bestie.
Not so fast, said Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian, who warned their enemies “must take their dream of the Iranian people’s unconditional surrender to their graves." Then he apologized to neighboring countries for strikes against their U.S. bases. In response, Trump crowed they were ready "to cry uncle" and declared it "the first time Iran has ever lost in thousands of years." MAGA voted for an isolationist America First leader; they got a raging, idiotic, ignorant warmonger who launched more military attacks on more countries in a year than any president, and who doesn't give a shit about Americans. Asked if we should be worried about retaliatory attacks from Iran, he shrugged, "I guess...When you go to war, some people will die.” Aka, whatever. But lookit these cool, macho videos celebrating Epic Fury!
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Within days, the White House, or the puerile gamesters running their social media account, moved on from simply glorifying the violence to transforming it into video games, “gamifying" it by seamlessly merging video footage of actual U.S. strikes and explosions with bellicose clips from Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat. They also interspersed real kill-footage with popular action flicks and TV shows - Braveheart, Gladiator, Top Gun, Iron Man, even Saul Goodman and Walter White: "I am the danger" - complete with relentless, churning techno music to get your jingoistic heart racing. The result, both cringey and chilling, is to render real-life pain, blood, death, grief, terror, destruction, displacement mere cartoon entertainment, stripped of humanity, unworthy of empathy.
In a rare move, the gaslighting profanity of the videos prompted a "call to conscience" from Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, who decried the "profound moral failure" they represent. Seeing "real war with real death and real suffering treated like a video game" was "sickening," he wrote, war and its brutality become "a spectator sport" and a moral crisis. "Our government (is) thrilled by the destructive power of our military, addicted to the 'spectacle' of explosions," he wrote. "The American people are better than this." Maybe, some of them. But the malignant narcissist with a puerile, warped, self-serving world view and fanboys marveling at the capture of Maduro as "the most gangster thing I've seen in my life" are still hideously, obliviously "locked in" to the atrocities.
So are, of course, his loyal buffoonish minions, strutting and gloating over America's bloody, illegal "victories." "We're marching through the world," declared giddy, craven lickspittle Lindsay Graham to a laughing Maria Bartiromo on Fox. "We’re clearing out the bad guys." All praise to "Ronald Reagan plus," "the greatest commander in chief of all time." He doesn't want "a fair fight," just "a quick one," he said, joining the bully ranks, and to make lots of money. Committed to being the cringiest cheerleader on the vile team, he even brought props; he waves "inane Make Iran Great Again" and "Free Cuba" hats, and smirks, "Stay tuned." Oh puke. Who asked America to clear out the bad guys? Who thinks what we need is a hat-based foreign policy? Idiotic hubris, thy name is.
Meanwhile, insufferable Press Barbie Stepford, her little Christian cross front and center, has gone full, smug, North Korea agit-prop. What does Trump's imaginary “unconditional surrender" mean, she is asked. She yammers at length, dragging out the titles in an effort to bolster her gobbledygook: "It means that when President Trump, as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, determines that Iran no longer poses a threat to the United States of America and the goals of Operation Epic Fury has (sic) been fully realized, whether they say it themselves or not." And as the blessed leader of MAGA, she adds breezily, there may or may not be boots on the ground in Iran; "President Trump wisely keeps all his options on the table." And bring on the video games.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Most repulsive is smarmy, abusive, chest-thumping Christo-fascist and "day-drunk dipshit" Kegseth, who finally got a war to go with his puerile bravado. Preening in his greasy hair and patriotic pocket square, he vows to "unleash overwhelming and punishing violence,” revels in "death and destruction from the sky," brags, "America is winning - decisively, devastatingly and without mercy," and gloats of the "quiet death" - and war crime - of 87 Iranian sailors killed when a US torpedo hit their unarmed frigate heading home from a training exercise the US took part in. A lethal "broken boy in a costume," he's reviled by peers for his bombastic language and "moral depravity." One advocate calls him "a very dangerous person," "out of his depth," "cavalier, obtuse and so incompetent I wouldn’t feel safe leaving him in charge of a DoorDash order."
Despite all that - and reports of Pentagon excess topping $93 billion spent in one month, under use-it-or-lose-it funding rules, on furniture, ice cream machines, sushi prep tables, iPads, king crab, lobster tail, steak, doughnuts - still there he was, pig-eyed, smirking, ostensibly assuring us not to worry about reports Russia is providing Iran with intel on American troops, because "the president has an incredible knack at mitigating those risks." "Nobody's putting us in danger," he sneered. "We're putting the other guys in danger - that's our job." Then he launched into a casual genocidal rant deemed "some really dark shit." Per Rumsfeld: "You go to war with the sociopathic, bullying, self-declared Secretary of War you have," and the base war porn that goes with him.
And of course the imbecile who last weekend attended the "dignified transfer" of the senselessly dead Americans he's to blame for, wearing his undignified white USA golf cap because he cares more about his "hair." He eloquently noted "I hate to do that" - see the dead, also muss his hair - but "it’s part of war. It's the bad part of war." Truth. Later, he was asked about the murder of up to 175 girls in an Iranian elementary school. Though the investigative Bellingcat and multiple news outlets confirmed a US Tomahawk missile hit the school - another war crime - Trump suggested, with no evidence, it may have been Iran; challenged why he thought so, he conceded he had no idea what he was talking about. Still, slimy Hegseth concurred: "The only side that targets civilians is Iran." And the only side to mistakenly kill 175 children is America.
Trump went golfing, then spoke at a GOP retreat at his friggin' golf club. He railed against Dems opposing the SAVE America Act, which would sabotage the mid-terms with new voting strictures: "It even has 'America' in its name," he whined, and Schumer is "now a Palestinian officially." He dismissed concerns about soaring gas prices, "a very small price to pay (for) World Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY," and warned Iran not to "try anything cute" to block the Strait of Hormuz, or "Death, Fire, and Fury will reign (sic) upon them." And still more war slopaganda streamed from a White House that touts killing as sport. Home runs in baseball, like missiles hitting targets, are "pure American dominance." Football = missile hits = "TOUCHDOWNS!", all, "JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY."
Iran, it turns out, also seeks their own justice. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced they do not want to harm ordinary Americans who oppose foreign wars like "Operation Epic Mistake,” but they will no longer seek diplomacy and they have "many surprises in store" if America keeps attacking their oil or nuclear sites. In response to our cartoon agitprop, they also released their own LEGO-style video - missiles, explosions, a whiteboard reading, "My homeland is my life." Comments: "Begun, the content wars have," "Who would've thought a country run by religious fanatics that propagates martyrdom would not just roll over upon being attacked?" and, "Maybe I shouldn't have wished to live in more interesting times." Also, "Even their AI slop is killing ours."
Trump, flailing in the face of political and economic blowback to a war against a potentially nuclear-armed nation of 91 million people he didn't really mean to start, is struggling to figure out how to end it, or at least randomly declare victory like in elections. We are awash in mixed messages: "So is the war that isn't a war over or isn't it?" Hegseth, asked where are we now: "We're in a very strong place," "This is just the beginning," "We are giving the president maximum options," "Our will is endless." Trump, asked if it's over or starting: "You could say both," "We could call it a tremendous success right now or we could go further," "The war is very complete, pretty much," "It is won, but not won enough." For once, he was right: We're tired from so much fucking winning.
It turns out the only imminent threat was, is Trump, writes David Rothkopf, who cites "the madness" of so many people around the world "buffeted by the psychosis of a single man," his "whims, impulses, ignorance, greed, malevolence, hatefulness, turning pique into economic pain, promoting the incompetent and monstrous to do his dirty work, seeking desperately to steal glory he does not deserve," and by shuttering US programs worldwide causing "the death of millions who simply had the misfortune to live in Trump's time." On Saturday, Country Joe McDonald died at 84 after a decades-long music career. Its touchstone was perhaps his furious performance, before nearly half-a-million people at 1969's Woodstock Festival, of his I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die Rag, about another rich man's war and poor man's fight. May he, and too many others, rest in peace and power.
"And it's 1, 2, 3, what're we fighting for?" - Country Joe McDonald
"Looking at what we are confronted with today, those most likely to argue they should hold a place above ordinary people are actually, in fact, the least of us, the most contemptible among us." - David Rothkopf
Update: The Pentagon has barred several news photographers from Kegseth's Iran war briefings after his aides found some earlier photos "unflattering," The Washington Post reported Wednesday. Whew: So reassuring to know the purported leader of the world's largest military is laser-focused on his priorities in these apocalyptic times.

- YouTube www.youtube.com
The New Brunswick, New Jersey City Council voted Wednesday to cancel plans to construct an artificial intelligence data center and instead build a new public park where the 27,000-square foot facility would have gone.
Artificial intelligence data centers—which house the servers and other infrastructure needed to train and power AI models—have major environmental and climate impacts, as they consume massive amounts of electricity and water, as well as rare earth metals and other resources.
According to New Brunswick Patch, hundreds of people packed into Wednesday evening's city hall meeting to voice concerns that the proposed data center would send their electricity and water bills skyrocketing, and that the facility would harm the environment.
"Many people did not want this in their neighborhood," New Brunswick NAACP president Bruce Morgan said during the council meeting. "We don't want these kinds of centers that's going to take resources from the community."
The site of the nixed data center, 100 Jersey Avenue, is already slated for development including 600 new apartments—10% of which will be affordable housing units—and warehouses for startups and other small businesses. Now, thanks to Wednesday's vote, a park is on the agenda too.
"This is great news, no data center," New Brunswick resident Anne Norris told Patch.
"My kids went through the public school system; we didn't pay for lunch because we have so many families under the poverty line," Norris said before taking aim at what she said was the dearth of affordable housing approved for the site.
"Given the economic status of the people who live in New Brunswick, I don't think 10% is really sufficient," she contended.
Following the council meeting, jubilant residents celebrated the data center's cancellation, chanting slogans including, "The people united will never be defeated!"
"We say a big 'fuck you' to Big Tech!" local organizer Ben Dziobek shouted to the crowd. "We say a big 'fuck you' to private equity! And it's time to build communities, not data centers."
The US economy has reached a breaking point, suggested Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday as he and Rep. Ro Khanna introduced legislation to force billionaires pay their fair share in taxes.
"We can no longer tolerate a corrupt tax code that enables billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than the average worker," said Sanders (I-Vt.) "In a democratic society, we cannot tolerate 60% of our people living paycheck to paycheck—struggling to pay for housing, food, and healthcare—while 938 billionaires have become $1.5 trillion richer. We cannot continue a trend in which, over the past 50 years, $79 trillion in wealth in our country has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. Enough is enough. Billionaires cannot have it all."
The taxes of fewer than 1,000 people in the US would be impacted by the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act, but just a 5% annual wealth tax on those households would be able to raise an estimated $4.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade, said Sanders' office—a fact that underscores the immense wealth of the 938 billionaires who would be targeted by the bill.
Those 938 people have a collective net worth of $8.2 trillion, and Sanders and Khanna (D-Calif.) pointed out how the immense fortunes of some high-profile billionaires would be affected by the bill.
According to the lawmakers, Tesla CEO and President Donald Trump ally Elon Musk, whose $833 billion net worth makes him richer than the bottom 53% of US households, would owe $42 billion in taxes—an unfathomable amount to the vast majority of Americans, but a comparatively tiny tax bill for Musk, who would be left with about $792 billion.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos would each owe just $11 billion compared to their $220 billion and $218 billion net worth.
The wealth of billionaires has risen rapidly in recent years, increasing by about 20% in 2025, according to Americans for Tax Fairness.
“We have a deep economic divide in this country. On one side, places like Silicon Valley are generating extreme wealth. On the other side, families are struggling to cover the cost of healthcare, housing, and basic needs," said Khanna. "We can tax billionaires a modest amount to make sure everyone has a fair chance while keeping our innovative engine. That is why I am proud to join Sen. Bernie Sanders to lead the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act."
With the revenue collected from the wealth tax, said Sanders and Khanna, the federal government would:
"Democracies become oligarchies when wealth becomes too concentrated," said the economists. "The US has now reached an unprecedented level of top wealth concentration. US billionaire wealth has exploded in recent years, more than doubling since 2019. A billionaire wealth tax is the most direct policy tool to curb the growing concentration of wealth among the billionaire class in the United States."
"Combining top wealth taxation with policies to rebuild middle class economic security," said Saez and Zucman, "is what the United States needs to ensure vibrant and equitable growth for the future."
As Jeff Stein wrote at the Washington Post, the proposal of a wealth tax—which is supported by roughly two-thirds of Americans, according to polls—could become a litmus test in the 2028 presidential election, in which Khanna has been named as a potential candidate.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also been named as a possible Democratic contender and has expressed vehement opposition to a billionaire tax that's been proposed in his state, putting him at odds with about 90% of Democratic voters there and three-quarters of all Californians.
Sanders—who supports the California measure—said that "it is time to enact a wealth tax on billionaires and use this revenue to address some of the major crises facing working families, the children, the elderly, the sick, and the most vulnerable.”
“At a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality," he said, "this legislation demands that the billionaire class in America finally pay their fair share of taxes so that we can create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%."
Billionaires exerted an unprecedented amount of influence over the 2024 US federal elections, accounting for almost one-fifth of the nearly $16 billion spent to elect candidates during that cycle, according to a New York Times analysis published Monday.
Just 300 billionaires and their immediate families poured an unprecedented $3 billion into the election, either giving directly to candidates or through political action committees.
These individuals represent just about 0.0087% of the 3.46 million people who donated more than $200 to one or multiple candidates during the election cycle.
And yet, with an average donation of $10 million apiece—equivalent to what 100,000 typical donors would give—they amounted to about 19% of all spending, allowing their interests to be pushed to the center of major races.
The Times highlighted the extraordinary role that billionaire fundraisers played in pushing Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) over the finish line in his bid to unseat the three-term incumbent Democrat, then-Sen. Jon Tester.
Sheehy's long shot campaign was given a boost by Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, who donated $8 million to his super PAC after previously investing $150 million in the candidate's struggling firefighting business, which helped seed his campaign.
As the report explains, Schwarzman "was not the only financial heavyweight in Mr. Sheehy’s corner":
At least 64 billionaires and 37 of their immediate family members donated directly to his campaign, a New York Times analysis found. When also accounting for money that flowed through political committees that support Mr. Sheehy, an analysis shows that billionaires contributed about $47 million in the race that Mr. Sheehy went on to win.
Sheehy's campaign drew support from a who's who of GOP power brokers: Jeff Yass, the founder of the Pennsylvania-based trading firm Susquehanna International Group and a major funder of Trump's massive White House ballroom project; the Uihlein family, which owns Uline shipping and has been central to backing anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, and election-denialist causes; and Florida hedge fund founder Ken Griffin, who spent $12 million to stop an initiative in the state to legalize marijuana.
In installing Sheehy, the ultrawealthy bought themselves "a key ally on tax policies that benefit the wealthy" who "cosponsored a proposal to eliminate the estate tax," the Times reported.
While billionaires still have their talons in both political parties, the Times noted a distinct shift toward Republicans in 2024—for every one dollar given to Democrats, five went to the GOP in the election.
Trump, who openly begged for donations from oil tycoons on the campaign trail, was the single largest beneficiary of this avalanche of spending.
According to a study by Americans for Tax Fairness in October 2024, less than a month before election day, Trump had already received $450 million from 150 billionaire families, 75% of their $600 million total to major candidates, and three times Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris's $143 million.
By the end of the campaign, Trump and his affiliated PACs would amass more than $250 million from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and more than $100 million from both the pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson and the banking heir Timothy Mellon, according to OpenSecrets.
Trump has since appointed more than a dozen billionaires to administration positions, including Musk, who was tasked with eviscerating public spending as the de facto head of the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE).
But as the Times reported, "Many of those billionaires are not only hoping to reshape the federal government... but to win influence in state legislatures, city councils, school boards, and courthouses."
"Ultrawealthy donors... have helped overhaul political leadership and policy in states across the country, expanding private charter schools, restricting abortion rights, advancing artificial intelligence in government, and blocking laws that would make it harder to evict tenants," the report explained.
As the 2026 midterm cycle begins, another spending blitz is coming. As the Times reported last month, the artificial intelligence industry, crypto industry, the pro-Israel lobby, and Trump's super PAC have each amassed war chests of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to help elect their allies to Congress.
Silicon Valley billionaires, including PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, meanwhile,have collectively dumped tens of millions into stopping a proposal in California for a one-time 5% tax on billionaires in the state, which would replace Medicaid funding slashed by Republicans' massive budget law last year.
The explosion in spending by the ultrarich has come quickly. Where billionaires spent just $16.6 million to influence the 2008 election cycle, that number has steadily ballooned up to $3 billion in 2024, a more than 12,000% increase when adjusted for inflation.
Daniel Weiner, the director of the Brennan Center for Justice's elections and government program, said that the "astonishing stat" was a "legacy of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision" in 2010, which allowed billionaire-funded dark money groups to spend unlimited amounts of cash on political communication advocating for candidates.
"The resulting collapse of campaign finance rules has combined with a resurgence in the sort of high-level self-dealing that was pervasive during the Gilded Age, when bribery and graft were common, and corporations used their wealth to secure monopolies, government subsidies, and other benefits," Weiner wrote for TIME on Monday.
"As in the past, the question now is who will offer Americans a real alternative, including a commitment to stamp out self-dealing in all three branches of the government," he said, recommending a constitutional amendment to restore campaign finance limits tossed aside by the Supreme Court, a ban on spending by government contractors seeking contracts, and bans on congressional stock trading.
"For a representative democracy like ours to work, citizens must have some confidence that, through voting and other forms of political engagement, they have a fighting chance to turn their priorities into government policy," he concluded. "Far too many Americans have lost that faith, and they identify pervasive corruption at the top of our government as a big part of the reason. But cycles of corruption followed by reform are an enduring feature of American history. A new round of ambitious reform is overdue."
With attention directed at President Donald Trump's war on immigrants across the United States and various international conflicts, including the assault on Iran, there hasn't been much prominent news coverage in recent weeks about a key issue of the 2024 campaign—GOP abortion bans—but people nationwide continue to endure the impacts of such policies, as revealed in a Monday report from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The Price of Safety: Stories of Abortions Denied, Careers Disrupted, and States Left Behind features various profiles demonstrating "the human and economic toll" of abortion bans, which right-wing policymakers have enacted or intensified since the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022.
The anthology uses stories from patients, doctors, business leaders, and others to "show the real-world consequences of laws that criminalize standard medical care," said Nancy Northup, the center's president, in a statement. "Abortion bans don't stay in exam rooms. They reshape communities, workplaces, and state economies. As long as politicians keep restricting care, families will keep moving, clinicians will keep leaving, and states will keep watching their competitive edge slip away."
"Our daughter's spine was severely abnormal, her brain hadn't formed correctly, and she only had one kidney... I did everything by the book medically, but the experience still made me feel like a criminal for seeking evidence-based care for a lethal fetal diagnosis."
Dani Mathisen, "a Fort Worth native from a family of physicians," discovered during a routine anatomy scan with her OB-GYN, who is also her aunt, that she needed an abortion, 18 weeks into a planned pregnancy. As she explained, "Our daughter's spine was severely abnormal, her brain hadn't formed correctly, and she only had one kidney."
Texas had banned abortions after six weeks and allowed private citizens to sue anyone who helped a pregnant person access care. According to Mathisen: "My mom, also a doctor, stepped in anyway. She found a clinic in New Mexico, booked the flights and hotel, called the staff, and handed us an envelope of cash. We paid for the abortion with cash out of fear of leaving a paper trail tying Texas credit cards to out-of-state abortion care. I did everything by the book medically, but the experience still made me feel like a criminal for seeking evidence-based care for a lethal fetal diagnosis."
"I had always imagined building my career in Texas," she added. "After this, I chose an OB-GYN residency in Hawaii because I needed full-spectrum training—including abortion care—and I couldn't get that in Texas."
Mathisen wasn't alone in fleeing that state. Amanda Ducach, CEO and co-founder of an artificial intelligence startup focused on women's health, shared how she "built Ema in Houston, and Texas shaped our earliest users and our mission," but when Roe fell, she "was seven and a half months into a high-risk pregnancy."
"Suddenly, even if I were to face a life-threatening emergency, I wasn't sure I'd receive timely care. My doctors weren't sure either," Ducach detailed. "It also changed how I thought about my company, and our responsibility to the people who rely on us through our partner platforms."
"After months of legal review and deep conversations with my team, I decided to relocate both my family and Ema's headquarters to Massachusetts where abortion access is protected under state law," she continued. "I also gave employees the option to work from any location, which brought immediate relief."
"Suddenly, even if I were to face a life-threatening emergency, I wasn't sure I'd receive timely care. My doctors weren't sure either."
Elizabeth Weller also left Texas. She said that "the decision cost us $25,000+ in income, distanced us from our community, and upended the future we had envisioned. But after the pregnancy complications I faced, it was painfully clear: Texas no longer provided the basic medical care necessary to have a child."
So did Dr. Judy Levison, who spent over two decades practicing and teaching obstetrics and gynecology in the state. After "watching abortion bans turn routine medical care into a legal minefield," she retired, moved to Colorado, and "began volunteering with an abortion support group."
It's not just Texas. Kayla Smith said that she left Idaho—"where I'd lived for 13 years, gone to college, met my husband, built our careers, and wanted to grow our family"—for Washington state. She explained that just 48 hours after Idaho's ban took effect and "19 weeks into my pregnancy with my second child, we discovered that our baby had a severe, inoperable heart defect."
Tracy Young, "a first-generation American, a mother of four, and the co-founder of two technology companies," highlighted how abortion bans also outlaw proper treatment for people experiencing miscarriages. While she is based in San Francisco, California, Young began "losing a pregnancy I had deeply wanted" while traveling for work in Louisiana.
"Back home in California, my doctors told me that my body had not completed the miscarriage naturally. They prescribed misoprostol, and when that wasn't enough, performed a surgical procedure to prevent infection and complications," she said. "Today, abortion bans have made that same care illegal or heavily restricted in many states, including Louisiana where I miscarried."
Another business leader, Chris Webb, CEO and co-founder of ChowNow—an online ordering platform with offices in California and Missouri—publicly supported abortion access in 2019 by signing on to a coalition's "Don't Ban Equality" letter. After Roe's reversal, he sent out a company-wide email disclosing a girlfriend's abortion and offering to personally cover the travel costs of any employee who needed such care.
"Leaders owe employees honesty about where they stand—and action when basic rights are on the line," he said. "Abortion policies aren't just about healthcare. They're good for employers and good for people. When more companies speak up, there is safety in numbers. And in the long run, protecting your team protects your business—and is just the right thing to do."
"Reproductive rights are so crucial that Americans are uprooting their lives to ensure they have access to care."
The report's release coincided with the publication of a paper adapted from one prepared for the center by researchers who estimated "the market value of reproductive rights as capitalized into US housing markets."
The paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that "total abortion bans reduced rents by an average of 2.2% from July 2022 through June 2025, with the effect reaching 4.0% in the most recent year. Over the same horizon, bans increased rental vacancy rates by an average of 1.1 percentage points, with the effect reaching 1.8 percentage points in the most recent year. Estimates for home values and homeowner vacancy rates are similar in magnitude but less precise."
The center's senior director, Julia Taylor Kennedy, said that "the economic data and the firsthand accounts are telling the same story... Reproductive rights are so crucial that Americans are uprooting their lives to ensure they have access to care. That means that, for employers and policymakers, abortion bans carry measurable workforce and competitiveness implications."
Despite such findings, Republican state and federal policymakers continue to restrict reproductive freedom. In recent months, the Trump administration quietly imposed an abortion ban at the US Department of Veterans Affairs and expanded the global gag rule.
Meanwhile, at the state level last month, Tennessee Republicans introduced legislation to make abortion a capital offense, and a sheriff's office in South Carolina launched an investigation into a fetus, estimated to be just 13-15 weeks, found at a water treatment plant, highlighting the rising criminalization of pregnancy loss.
Last week, the Marion County Superior Court granted a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of Indiana's near-total abortion ban, and Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita swiftly appealed.
The cost of President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran has already cost US taxpayers billions of dollars, and will cost billions more if the conflict drags on.
Anadolu Ajansı on Monday published an estimate that the Iran war cost $10.35 billion over its first 10 days, or more than 1% of the entire 2026 US defense budget.
The US spent an estimated $779 million in the war's first 24 hours alone, and Anadolu noted that daily costs have gone up since then.
Specifically, Anadolu found that as "the campaign has expanded, operational spending has climbed into the billions, based on estimated flight hours, maintenance costs, and munitions expenditures derived from the US Department of Defense’s 2025 and 2026 budget requests."
In the days since Anadolu published its estimate, the estimated cost of the war has soared past $11 billion, according to a tracker that assumes the assault is costing the US $1 billion per day, based on preliminary figures from the Pentagon.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that the US Department of Defense estimated that it burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions in the initial strikes on Iran, raising questions about whether the war has seriously eroded US military readiness.
Due to the conflict's rapidly escalating costs, the Trump administration is expected to ask US Congress for a $50 billion supplemental funding bill to keep the war going.
Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, and Damian Murphy, senior vice president of national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress, released a memo on Monday explaining why Congress should not agree to any White House requests for supplemental funding.
First, the memo notes that polling shows that the Iran war is unprecedentedly unpopular, being the first US war ever to have a net negative approval rating at the outset of the conflict.
"Lawmakers in Congress have the upper hand both morally and politically in opposing the war in Iran," the memo states. "The public does not want to be drawn into another forever war that threatens American lives, kills children, destabilizes the Middle East, and whose costs could easily balloon to hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars."
The memo then argues that the massive increase in defense spending contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed by Republicans in last year and signed into law by Trump, should be more than enough to cover the cost of replacing munitions.
"The 'Big Beautiful Bill' provided an additional $153 billion for defense just eight months ago," the memo explains, "on top of the annual defense budget of around $900 billion. The annual defense appropriations bill, also approved only a few months ago, grants the White House the legal authority and flexibility to move around billions of dollars within the Department of Defense to achieve their goals, known as transfer authority."
Republican Sen. John Kennedy scoffed as David J. Bier of the Cato Institute outlined how the Trump administration has openly demanded "ethnic cleansing" through the deportation of 100 million people.
A Republican senator on Tuesday accused an immigration policy expert of "hyperbole" in his condemnation of President Donald Trump's anti-immigration agenda during a hearing—but the witness, David J. Bier of the libertarian Cato Institute, emphasized that the administration's own words and policies have clearly pointed to a goal of expelling millions of citizens from the United States.
At a hearing on sanctuary cities held by the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) read a post Bier wrote on social media in December 2025 in which he said Trump administration officials "think they can troll their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing," suggesting it was one of many "hyperbolic statements" that discredit Bier.
Bier, the director of immigration studies for the Cato Institute, has spent the past year tracking the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda, in which a majority of people who have been detained have had no criminal convictions, despite the White House's persistent claims it is targeting "the worst of the worst" violent criminals.
He was unfazed by Kennedy's questioning, quickly replying that his comment was in response to a social media post by the Department of Homeland Security's official account in which the agency shared an image of a Cadillac on a beach, featuring the message, "America after 100 million deportations."
"That was in regard to a Department of Homeland Security post about advocating 100 million deportations," said Bier as the senator attempted to talk over him. "One hundred million deportations would be ethnic cleansing. You would be removing one-third of country."
This exchange between David Bier and Sen Foghorn Leghorn (R-LA) is something else. Kennedy thinks he has him in three separate gotcha moments, but not so fast Bier had his number. The clip is a bit long but it’s 3 minutes of Kennedy getting owned. Watch👇pic.twitter.com/HPHicyUcl1
— Brian Cardone 🏴☠️🇺🇦 (@cardon_brian) March 10, 2026
Kennedy didn't respond, instead reading a post Bier wrote on March 2 which said: "If you rule against Trump's population purge agenda... the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents who hide behind masks while violating the Constitution."
Bier stood by his defense of judges; his post had been in reference to a "60 Minutes" interview given by US District Judge John Coughenour, who described a hoax in which law enforcement showed up at his house after getting a report that he had murdered his wife. He also received a bomb threat, with both incidents taking place after he ruled against Trump's executive order aimed at ending the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
The Cato expert also defended his reference to a "population purge," saying: "I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a 'mass deportation agenda.' It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of the United States."
"These are not hyperbolic statements," he said as Kennedy hurled insults at Bier, asking "what planet" he was from and telling him he triggered the senator's "gag reflex" before being cut off by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Kennedy also accused Bier of making a "hyperbolic statement" on February 11, when he posted on the social media platform Bluesky that in addition to advising US military officers to refuse to carry out illegal orders, Democratic members of Congress should warn them "to refuse unethical orders."
Bier readily defended his remark, asking Kennedy: "Do you disagree with it? You think people should do unethical things?" The senator didn't respond.
It was unclear whether Kennedy was unfamiliar with the president's plan to strip people of their US citizenship—one of the first efforts of his second term, with the executive order signed just after he took office—or if he was simply "looking for fundraising sound bites," as one Cato Institute staffer posited.
Bier said Wednesday that it was the second time in a month that Kennedy has appeared "shocked" to learn about the policies of the president he has supported for nearly a decade.
"Just a month earlier I had explained to him how the Trump administration has already banned HALF of all legal immigrants to the US," said Bier, pointing to his testimony from February in which he explained how the White House has suspended immigrant visas and US Citizenship and Immigration Services benefit applications.
Listen to how shocked Senator Kennedy was. I should've clarified more how it's actually three different overlapping policies (the presidential visa ban, the USCIS benefits suspension, and the State Dept immigrant visa suspension) leading to the theft from applicants. pic.twitter.com/SZh4PMzc6j
— David J. Bier (@David_J_Bier) February 11, 2026
The hearing on sanctuary cities was subtitled "The Cost of Undermining Law and Order," but Bier focused his testimony on the Cato Institute's extensive research that's found immigration has reduced government deficits by at least $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years.
"I was invited to the Budget Committee because of this comprehensive study Cato published, not to discuss random tweets," said Bier. "The Democrats all wanted to talk substance. The other side name-called. Incredible contrast."
"This stupid war isn’t just an indictment of the Trump administration, it’s an indictment of the entire machinery of DC warmongering."
While President Donald Trump is the person primarily responsible for launching an unprovoked US war against Iran, one foreign policy expert argued on Wednesday that the president couldn't have done this without help from a large network of war advocates.
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), noted in a Wednesday social media post that Trump's decision to attack Iran didn't come out of nowhere.
"This stupid war isn’t just an indictment of the Trump administration," he argued, "it’s an indictment of the entire machinery of DC warmongering, think tanks, journalists, lobbyists, Republicans and Democrats, who have spent decades inflating threats. We need to smash that machinery."
Duss didn't name any specific DC foreign policy power players in his post, although less than an hour later he heaped scorn on Samantha Power, who served as US ambassador to the United Nations under former President Barack Obama and as director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under former President Joe Biden.
Duss reposted a video of Power recently being asked why she didn't speak out more against the genocidal assault that Israel waged against Gaza given that she had written an entire book calling out the US for past inaction to stop genocides in foreign lands.
Power responded that she did her very best to get aid to Palestinians while running USAID, but said that ultimately she couldn't "just get up and decide today what US foreign policy is."
Duss, however, argued that this was a cop-out and said that someone of Power's stature could have made a difference by speaking out.
"Sometimes it is better to work inside to make a bad policy better," he wrote. "But Power is different. She had enormous credibility she could’ve used to sound the alarm on the Gaza genocide. She chose status, and ends as a cautionary tale."
"There are hundreds of people who could’ve run USAID just as well as Samantha Power," he added. "There are few who could’ve made as much of an impact by speaking out publicly."
Duss' critique of the US foreign policy establishment was echoed by Ben Rhodes, a former national security official in the Obama administration, who argued on Wednesday that the Iran war is partly the result of "a few dozen well-funded, oft-quoted, DC Blob 'experts' who have maniacally advocated for this outcome for 15 years."
In a Tuesday post, Rhodes noted that he and other foreign policy experts had long foreseen the negative consequences of attacking Iran, such as the energy supply crisis created by Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and that these predictable disasters were ignored by DC war advocates.
"Nearly everyone I know who opposes this war has predicted these exact consequences for over a decade. Trump decided to listen to Bibi and the most insular, hawkish, dead-enders imaginable," he wrote, using Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nickname.
"War fans say that whatever gets destroyed, someone will build a better one later," said one Iranian scholar. "Fine, go ahead and build a new Golestan Palace, a new Chehel Sotun, and a new Taq-e Bostan too."
In addition to killing and injuring thousands of Iranians, the US-Israeli war in Iran is bringing ruin upon some of the oldest and most cherished historical landmarks in the world.
Several centuries-old locations, designated as World Heritage sites by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), have suffered damage from bombings since the US and Israel launched the war on February 28. As UNESCO noted last week, these sites are protected under multiple statutes in international law.
"Iran is home to one of the richest concentrations of historical sites on Earth, representing civilizations that stretch from the Elamites and Achaemenid Persians to Islamic dynasties and modern Iran," wrote Haley Fuller for Military.com on Wednesday.
"Iran contains dozens of sites recognized by the international community as having 'outstanding universal value,'" she said. "The country currently has nearly 30 locations listed as UNESCO World Heritage sites, including ancient cities, monumental architecture, and archaeological landscapes spanning thousands of years."
UNESCO said that it has communicated the coordinates of protected sites to all parties in the conflict, including Israel. Iranian authorities, meanwhile, had already begun marking important historical sites with the internationally recognized Blue Shield symbol, established in the 1954 Hague Convention to designate protected areas. But several have still been attacked.
According to multiple local reports, as well as photos and videos posted to social media, an Israeli airstrike on Monday shattered windows, scattered debris, and broke doors at the Chehel Sotoun Palace and other sites within the 17th-century Naqsh-e-Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan.
The city was the capital of Persia under the Safavid dynasty from 1501-1736, and it boasts some of the country's most significant works of architecture and art. The Israeli military was reportedly targeting the governor’s building, which sits near the square.
"Chehel Sotoun is renowned for its extensive frescoes depicting historical battles, royal receptions, and scenes from Persian mythology, which are among the largest, most unique examples of Persianate painting," wrote Sarvy Geranpayeh in a report for The Art Newspaper.
While most of the site's interior paintings survived the attack, provincial officials said the site's famous mirror-work decorations were damaged, and a 17th-century fresco depicting the Iranian Safavid ruler Shah Tahmasp and the Indian Mughal Humayun sustained a large crack.
Several other buildings in the square also took damage, Geranpayeh reported:
Authorities reported that the 17th-century Ali Qapu Palace had its doors and windows shattered, while the 17th-century Jame Abbasi Mosque, also known as Shah Mosque, sustained damage to sections of its iconic turquoise and calligraphic tiles...
Several other sites within the Safavid-era Dawlatkhaneh complex also reportedly suffered damage. These include the 17th-century Rakeb-Khaneh pavillion (House of the Jockey), originally built to store the equestrian equipment and harnesses of the royal stables, Ashraf Hall, a highly decorative residential structure associated with the Safavid court, and the nearby 15th-century Teymouri Hall, a Timurid-era building later converted into the Natural History Museum.
A previous attack on March 1, the second day of the war, caused damage to the only designated UNESCO World Heritage site in Tehran, the Golestan Palace, which is more than 400 years old.
Geranpayeh reported that the building was left "strewn with debris, its windows blown out and its distinctive mirror and glasswork damaged."
Some of the architecture that has come under attack is even older. On March 8, Israeli strikes on Khorramabad reportedly damaged the structures surrounding the Falak-ol-Aflak Castle, which is more than 1,800 years old, dating back to the Sassanid Empire in the 3rd century.
The US Committee of the Blue Shield, an international organization tasked with protecting heritage sites in times of war and crisis, said it was “disturbed” by the United States' expressions of disregard for the laws of war.
The committee drew attention to comments made by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week that “America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history... All on our terms with maximum authority. No stupid rules of engagement.”
According to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, more than 19,000 civilian buildings have been damaged since the war began less than two weeks ago, including hospitals, residential buildings, and schools.
One attack, reportedly by the US, on a girls' school in Minab on the first day of the war, resulted in the slaughter of around 175 people, mostly children ages 7-12. According to the World Health Organization more than 1,300 people have been killed and 9,000 injured in total since February 28.
“The failure to observe international humanitarian law, including numerous international conventions to which the US is a state party, as well as customary international law, can lead to the commission of war crimes," the US Blue Shield Committee said. It added that this disregard extends to cultural sites as well.
"The destruction of cultural heritage is irreversible. It erases identity, history, and the shared memory of civilizations," the committee said. "No military or political objective justifies the willful or negligent destruction of humanity’s common inheritance. Such destruction is also one of the actions that can make returning to a state of peace more difficult."
According to a New York Times report on Wednesday, the destruction of culturally important sites has only heightened the anger Iranians feel as their country has fallen under attack.
"War fans say that whatever gets destroyed, someone will build a better one later," Mojtaba Najafi, a prominent Iranian scholar and researcher, said in a post to social media.
"Fine, go ahead and build a new Golestan Palace, a new Chehel Sotun, and a new Taq-e Bostan too," he continued, referring to another site which came under threat from US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025.
“For me, ancient monuments are as important as human lives, because they connect me to my past,” Najafi said. “And their destruction means my memory is being demolished."