5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
Paltry Concessions Given to Secure Paramount-Warner Merger Deal Decried as 'Meaningless Bullshit'
"Billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top," said one critic.
Sep 22, 2026
"A settlement that promises less than nothing."
That's how one critic of Paramount Skydance's planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday described the paltry concessions extracted by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials to enable the proposed $111 billion media megamerger.
Critics argue that the proposed settlement agreement lacks meaningful antitrust enforcement and hands control of major news and entertainment properties to a billionaire family closely aligned with President Donald Trump.
“Every! single! one! of these concessions is meaningless bullshit,” writer Cory Doctorow said Tuesday on Medium. “Bonta just handed the American movie and TV sector to two of the most odious creeps to draw breath, surrendering without firing a shot."
The settlement, which was announced Monday, clears a major roadblock to Paramount CEO David Ellison's takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN, HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, and numerous cable networks. The combined company would control nearly 30% of both US theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing.
The agreement contains a pledge to distribute at least 30 films annually for the first two years, then 32 movies each year after, invest hundreds of millions of dollars in US film production, maintain existing theater rental terms for three years, not sell Paramount and Warner Bros. studio lots for five years, and create an editorial independence board for CBS News and CNN.
In a Monday Substack post, American Economic Liberties Project research director Matt Stoller pointed out an apparent loophole in the settlement's film distribution requirement.
“They only have to distribute that many films,” he wrote. “They can make half as many. And those can be co-produced. So in fact, if you add up the numbers, Ellison promised to make fewer films going forward than Paramount and Warner are putting out today."
The settlement's editorial oversight board for CBS News and CNN have also come under fire. The five-member board overseeing the two entities will be appointed and paid by the combined company. Reuters reported Tuesday that the board would have no explicit investigative authority and that the company would be empowered to fill vacancies.
“As we learned from the failed and widely panned Facebook oversight board, a fake bipartisan oversight committee won’t save CNN,” Jessica González, the co-chief executive of the advocacy organization Free Press, said Monday. “We have all the evidence we need from the Ellisons’ destruction of CBS about what they do to warp journalism at Donald Trump’s request.”
David Ellison's father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Republican megadonor.
Seth Stern, a media attorney and chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said that "it's unclear how the attorneys general or courts can constitutionally hold Paramount accountable for the board's actions or inaction without themselves interfering in content."
Stoller noted that the agreement's force-majeure clause, which would reportedly allow Paramount-Warner to dodge its commitments in the event of economic recessions, strikes, and other labor disruptions.
Other opponents of the proposed deal bristle at the Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Saudi and Emirati investment in the new company that would be created if the merger is approved.
Alvaro Bedoya, a senior adviser to the American Economic Liberties Project, lamented that “today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
“Layoffs will follow. People from [Los Angeles] to Atlanta will lose their jobs, small businesses will lose their contracts, your cable bill and movie ticket will be even more expensive,” he continued. “Dissent against money and power will be even harder to find.”
“This did not have to happen," Bedoya stressed. "Thanks to an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots anger against the merger, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block it. They beat Paramount in court, winning a court-ordered pause on the merger, and beat them again at the negotiating table, getting the conglomerate to agree to pause the merger until as late as next June.”
“But the Ellison family does not care about the law. Instead, they loudly threatened to leave California if their merger did not go through immediately," he added. "[Gov.] Gavin Newsom caved to that pressure. So did [former state Attorney General] Xavier Becerra. And eventually, so did Attorney General Rob Bonta, agreeing to a weak settlement that will be exceedingly difficult to enforce.”
Stoller said that "there are a bunch of reasons they cleared the deal, such as threats to move the studio out of California, corruption, and general incompetence."
"I personally think CNN is terrible, and I’m glad it’s going to be discredited," Stoller wrote. "I also find it embarrassing that the Democratic AGs used antitrust law in an attempt to shade news coverage. But it’s downright comical they demanded that David Ellison not corrupt CNN by having David Ellison appoint a board ensuring that David Ellison not do that."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Good Luck With That': Critics Mock Trump for Hyping 'Deal' With Belarus to Replace Canadian Fertilizer
"Canada exports more potash to the US than Belarus produces."
Sep 21, 2026
President Donald Trump drew ridicule on Monday when he announced he was working on an agreement to import potash, an important fertilizer for US farmers, from Belarus.
In a social media post, Trump claimed that the "massive deal" with Belarus would let the US import potash for "substantially less than we are currently paying to Canada," which he described as "very good news for our Farmers and Ranchers."
Canada supplies roughly 80% of all potash used by US farmers, and Trump's trade war against America's largest trading partner has been putting upward pressure the prices of all Canadian imports.
However, even if Trump's deal to buy potash from Belarus comes to fruition, it is unclear how much relief it would provide to US farmers, who have been also been paying a heavy price his illegal war with Iran, which has led to record-high diesel fuel prices.
As noted by a Monday report from Bloomberg, Belarus in 2021 only shipped around 700,000 tons of potassium fertilizers to the US before trade with the nation was restricted following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Canada, meanwhile, supplied the US with more than 10 million tons of such fertilizers last year.
Bloomberg also pointed out that "Belarus doesn’t have enough capacity to supply large volumes to the US" at the moment "because production for the year is already under contract."
There are also several logistical challenges to shipping large quantities of fertilizer from Belarus.
Oil market researcher Rory Johnston observed in a social media post that Belarus is a landlocked country with no easy way to export its products to the west after Lithuania terminated its transit agreement with the country at the start of the Ukraine conflict.
Canada, Johnston added, is "right next door."
Journalist Diana Henriques offered a similar assessment of the challenges of importing potash from Belarus.
"It is 5,080 miles from Nebraska to Minsk," Henriques wrote. "It is about 700 miles from Nebraska to Saskatchewan, the source of most Canadian potash. That's gonna have to be one heckuva discount to cover the transportation differential."
Ross O'Connor, former foreign affairs and national security advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was openly dismissive of Trump's Belarus gambit.
"Good luck with that," O'Connor wrote. "Canada exports more potash to the US than Belarus produces."
David Ryan Miller, professor of government at American University, offered a satirical summary of Trump's latest geopolitical maneuver.
"We are spurning our longtime democratic ally directly to our north in favor of an autocratic regime aligned with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin that is 4,000+ miles away," Miller wrote. "We are very smart, serious people!"
Keep Reading
Show Less
‘Massive Betrayal’: Fury at Newsom and Bonta Over Merger Deal With Paramount
"Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
Sep 21, 2026
A coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta reportedly reached a deal on Monday to let Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery proceed, an outcome that press freedom advocates and antitrust campaigners condemned as a disaster for journalism, entertainment industry workers, and American democracy.
The deal, which is set to be formally announced later Monday, will pave the way for the creation of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, helmed by the son of a billionaire megadonor to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
If the merger is finalized, the resulting media behemoth would control nearly 30% of both wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing in the US. The combination would also put CNN under Ellison's control, heightening press freedom concerns that have intensified since Paramount's takeover of CBS.
"The AGs’ capitulation marks a new low."
“Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top,” Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement. “As a result, a billionaire media conglomerate closely allied with the president will soon own one of its closest rivals, including some of the nation’s most critical news outlets. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund will co-own those outlets, too.”
Bedoya criticized Bonta and California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who privately pushed the state attorney general's office to settle the lawsuit out of court. Xavier Becerra, the frontrunner to succeed Newsom, also called for a settlement, citing Paramount's threat to leave California if its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. was blocked.
“People want champions who are not afraid of rich bullies. Newsom, Becerra, and Bonta did not meet that mark," said Bedoya. "The people who work in the film and TV industry and the small businesses who support it will suffer as a result. And so will everyone who values dissent in our democracy.”
Jessica González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, also denounced Bonta for reneging on "his promise to enforce the law and protect consumers and workers."
"Hundreds of thousands of people called on our state AGs to stand up to the Ellisons, who have engaged in a campaign of corruption and extortion to pave the way for this unlawful merger. We can no longer rely on the federal government to enforce the law and protect regular people. That much is clear. But the AGs’ capitulation marks a new low. It’s a sad day for all of us who have been opposing this merger because it will cut jobs and raise prices, all as it consolidates the media even more to enable authoritarians."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, an outspoken opponent of the merger who was subjected to what critics called a corporate "smear campaign" because of his stance, trained his ire on California's governor in response to news of the settlement.
"Gavin Newsom hands huge win to Trump and his billionaire cronies," Ruffalo wrote on social media.
The trial was scheduled to begin in March of next year. In its original lawsuit against the proposed merger—filed shortly after the Trump Justice Department dropped its investigation of the proposed purchase—the coalition of 12 attorneys general warned the deal would "combine two of Hollywood’s five major film distributors and two of the five major basic cable channel owners, extinguishing competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflicting substantial harm on movie theaters, basic cable distributors and, ultimately, audiences nationwide."
The settlement deal reached Monday also reportedly includes the lawsuit filed by the Writers Guild of America, which represents TV screenwriters and others in the entertainment industry.
Bloomberg reported that the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, and other states that had pushed back during settlement talks were able to secure "independent editorial boards for CBS and CNN as part of the deal"—though it's unclear how such boards would function.
"The terms are said to include a financial penalty if the company fails to make good on a promise to distribute 30 films per year in theaters," Bloomberg added.
This news is deeply disappointing and a massive betrayal of everyday workers and small businesses.
David Ellison is willing to make big promises, like 30 films a year, because he knows he doesn't actually have to stand by it.
We've seen it before with past mergers: Promises… https://t.co/yAYXusKiRM
— American Economic Liberties Project (@econliberties) September 21, 2026
The Los Angeles Times noted that Paramount's purchase of Warner Bros. "will be heavily leveraged."
"The company’s bankers have lined up nearly $80 billion in debt to finance the merger. [Paramount CEO David] Ellison’s father, billionaire Larry Ellison, late last year agreed to backstop the $47-billion in equity needed to complete the acquisition. Royal families from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to chip in $24 billion for an equity stake by assuming some of Ellison’s financial commitments."
González of Free Press warned Monday that "consolidating the media in the hands of friendly oligarchs is right out of the authoritarian playbook."
“What’s exceedingly clear is that our laws and our political system are not strong enough to resist the pressure and manipulation of corrupt billionaires," said González. "We need to strengthen democratic systems of government, including getting money out of politics, and pass laws that break up big media conglomerates. We need to ensure that a few billionaires can’t drown out the masses to dictate bad policy.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are 'Unraveling'
"We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it," one expert said.
Sep 21, 2026
As warnings from within the artificial intelligence community fuel growing worldwide calls for regulations on AI, a panel established by the United Nations General Assembly stressed Monday that "the traditional model of safeguarding is unraveling."
On the eve of the first day of the assembly's high-level general debate, the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence released a thematic brief that points to one of several recently revealed incidents involving the rapidly advancing technology that have led to people around the world demanding swift action from policymakers.
In July, ChatGPT maker OpenAI disclosed what it called "an unprecedented cyber incident," explaining that its AI agents autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing.
The first brief from the panel of experts—titled "AI Agents, Misalignment, and Loss of Human Control Risks: Evidence from the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident"—focuses on "the emergence of goals that contradict the user's intentions when AI systems plan and carry out multistep tasks."
"A traditional AI system (not goal-seeking) may give a wrong answer because it lacks knowledge, misunderstands a request, or makes a random mistake," the report explains. "Such failures can often be reduced by improving competence or correcting a specific fault."
"A harder problem arises when a capable system's actions consistently work together to achieve a goal that conflicts with the user's intentions (called misalignment)," the brief continues. "In this case, improving the AI system's planning and problem-solving does not address this failure and can instead strengthen the unwanted behavior because the system can better optimize a bad objective which would otherwise be extremely unlikely to result from random mistakes due to AI incompetence."
OpenAI's Hugging Face incident "provides a documented example of this second pattern," the publication notes. "The agents collectively pursued a goal that developers had not assigned: 'cheating' on an evaluation and going to extreme lengths to conceal the evidence. In doing so, they pursued intermediate goals such as escaping their restricted testing environment to access the internet. As a consequence, these agents gained access to real-world systems."
Yoshua Bengio, the panel's co-chair, highlighted in a statement that "researchers have long warned that three conditions could lead to loss of control: a misaligned goal, the capability to pursue it, and an environment that allows it."
"This summer, all three came together in a real system, not a laboratory," he said. "Since this is not an isolated observation of misaligned goals, this raises serious questions about the way AI agents are currently trained."
This incident, the brief says, "exposed failures in several layers at once: network isolation, credential handling, monitoring, and response. The incident illustrates why several layers of safeguards need to be combined."
The good news is, "we are not starting from zero," said panel member Qinghua Lu. "Aviation, medicine, and cybersecurity learned to manage high-risk systems through incident reporting, independent scrutiny, and layered safeguards. But those practices may not be enough as AI agents become more capable, autonomous, and difficult to monitor."
"We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it, and ensure these protections remain effective as agents' capabilities grow," she emphasized. "We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Nobel-Winning Economists Say California Billionaire Tax Could Be ‘Turning Point in the Battle Between Democracy and Oligarchy’
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: it is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth."
Sep 21, 2026
As California voters head to the polls this November, their vote on whether to enact a first-of-its-kind billionaire wealth tax may mark "a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy," says a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists.
The fight over Proposition 40—a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of those with $1 billion or more in order to fund the state's healthcare system—has heated up in recent weeks.
The initiative remains popular, with 52% of voters in the state supporting it, according to a poll out last week. But California's elite have lined up at least $156 million behind an aggressive campaign to kill it, with Google co-founder Sergey Brin alone giving at least $102 million.
And while the proposal has strong backing from progressive politicians and labor unions, some prominent Democrats have tried to stop it, most notably Gov. Gavin Newsom.
As the rich flood the airwaves with ads warning that taxing their wealth would bring about economic ruin, six Nobel laureates, all of whom have won the prestigious prize for their work in economics, signed an open letter on Saturday endorsing Prop. 40.
They are inequality scholar Daron Acemoglu, global poverty researcher Abhijit Banerjee, labor and public finance economist Peter Diamond, anti-poverty economist Esther Duflo, trade economist and columnist Paul Krugman, and inequality and globalization economist Joseph Stiglitz.
"Proposition 40 would be the first-ever tax on billionaire wealth enacted anywhere in the world," the economists wrote. "California is the right place to take this historic step."
They explained that the growing number of billionaires in the state in recent decades has helped to make California "one of the most unequal places in America." While the state's richest 0.001% of residents were worth a combined $700 billion a decade ago, its 250 billionaires are now worth about $2.3 trillion—equivalent to the entire annual income of the state's 20 million taxpayers.
"This extreme wealth has translated into extraordinary power," the economists wrote, citing data showing that during the 2024 election, billionaires accounted for 19% of all federal election spending in the US and that these same billionaires are now marshaling huge sums of money to oppose a tax that would affect them.
While acknowledging that many of California's wealthiest have "made important contributions, for which they have been amply rewarded," the researchers noted their use of loopholes in the tax system to effectively pay a lower tax rate than the average Californian.
Most billionaire wealth is held in the form of stocks and other assets whose gains are not generally subject to income tax until they are sold.
As a result, billionaires in the state paid about $3 billion in state income taxes per year from 2019-25, while their fortunes increased by about $1.4 trillion over the period. Dividing total state income tax by that increase equals roughly 1.6%. Meanwhile, the average California family pays about 5-6% of their annual income in state income taxes.
The economists argued that enacting a wealth tax would allow the state to play "catch-up," raising about $100 billion—enough to offset federal cuts to the state's Medicaid program enacted in the Republican budget legislation last year, which have helped to fuel thousands of layoffs at hospitals around the state.
They also disputed a common counterargument that the tax will spur billionaire flight from the state and "doom" Silicon Valley.
Not only would the tax apply to any billionaire living in the state as of January 1, 2026, meaning most would not have had time to relocate; they also pointed out that in 2026, after Prop. 40 was announced, California has attracted 80% of the nation's venture capital funding, compared to just 50% prior to 2025, according to data from PitchBook's Venture Monitor.
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: It is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth to which it is only fair to ask the ultrawealthy to contribute.”
They added that passing Prop. 40 "isn’t just critical for Californians," but could "kickstart a movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states—and eventually at the federal level and in other countries."
The six Nobel laureates who signed Saturday's letter are not the first prominent economists to publicly advocate for the wealth tax. University of California, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez helped draft the proposal, while Gabriel Zucman, a chaired professor at the Paris School of Economics, has conducted research underpinning it. Paris School professor Thomas Piketty and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich have also come out in support of the ballot initiative.
Responding to the letter from the Nobel laureates, Dutch historian and wealth tax advocate Rutger Bregman—whose School for Moral Ambition has worked alongside Zucman to promote similar initiatives around the world—said it was "really great to see" more celebrated economists speaking up in favor of the proposal.
"You don't have to be a radical leftist to see why it's a good idea," Bregman wrote on social media. "This is not going to be some kind of socialist revolution. The proposal is about restoring balance to a mixed economy. You could even argue it's about saving capitalism itself from oligarchs like Sergey Brin. I think that's exactly why Nobel Prize-winning economists are coming out in favor of this tax."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Don't You Dare': Alarm as State AGs Weigh Deal to Advance Paramount Megamerger
Lina Khan, former head of the Federal Trade Commission, called ongoing settlement talks "troubling."
Sep 21, 2026
Paramount and a coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta are reportedly in advanced talks to settle a high-stakes lawsuit and allow the media conglomerate's proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery to proceed.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday that Bonta and Paramount executives have "discussed a series of potential concessions" as part of the ongoing settlement negotiations, "including a $1.5 billion investment by the company in production in California." The talks have also explored a potential promise by Paramount to stay in California and a requirement that the company sell off some cable channels and establish "a board to ensure that CNN retains editorial independence," according to the Journal. (Warner Bros. is CNN's parent company.)
Lina Khan, the former head of the Federal Trade Commission, was among those raising concerns about details trickling out of settlement talks between state attorneys general and Paramount, which is led by David Ellison—the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison. In a social media post, Khan wrote that the proposed megamerger "seems facially illegal, and the state AG lawsuit challenging it is very strong."
"It’s troubling to hear that the states may now settle for behavioral remedies, allowing the deal to go through subject to various promises from the firms," Khan wrote. "Behavioral remedies routinely fail, and the stakes here are particularly high given that a strong democracy requires open markets for sound journalism and creative expression."
"The states were right to step up," she added, "and I hope they keep fighting to protect this market, its workers, and the millions of Americans who value a free press and a vibrant film industry."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, was more blunt, calling the settlement talks "fucking pathetic."
"Bonta's reputation will never recover," Stoller wrote.
The coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block the proposed merger in July after the Trump Justice Department shut down its antitrust investigation into the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger and backed the deal. The Writers Guild of America has also sued over the proposed merger, arguing it "violates federal antitrust law and would cause specific harm to writers."
The state AGs' lawsuit warned that the merger would "extinguish competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflict substantial harm on movie theatres, basic cable distributors, and, ultimately, audiences nationwide," as well as "tens of thousands of workers across the production ecosystem."
Some attorneys general in the coalition are reportedly pushing back against some of the terms sought by Bonta and others. New York Attorney General Letitia James "has been resisting the deal terms and seeking additional protections for workers," according to CNN.
"Connecticut and at least two other states also have reservations about the settlement and are not currently on board," CNN added. "The holdouts are seeking additional remedies from Paramount."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, one of the most prominent opponents of the megamerger, implored the state attorneys general to reject a settlement deal and take the lawsuit to trial.
"Don't you dare," Ruffalo wrote in a message directed at Bonta. "Do not cave."
"You work for the people," he added, "the very people who will be hurt if you let this lousy deal filled with empty promises go forward."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Misled' and 'Strung Along' by Trump, Financial Pain of Farmers Grows as Costs Continue to Skyrocket
"I think a lot of people expected that maybe the war would wrap up and the prices would go down some... then it just skyrocketed," said one farmer of the cost of diesel.
Sep 18, 2026
Farmers across the US are speaking up about their struggles as President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran and trade war with Canada are taking a hammer to their finances.
In an interview with CBS News published Thursday, North Carolina farmer Matt Bell revealed that "I have never worried and stressed like I have the last year," thanks to the soaring costs of fuel, fertilizer, and farm equipment, all of which have gotten more expensive thanks to Trump's policies.
"The fertilizer, fuel, chemicals, seed, parts—you know, the whole nine yards," said Bell, "everything that we touch has gone up."
"We are fighting for survival."
Matt Bell, 52, has been farming for more than half his life in central North Carolina.
He grows soybeans, corn and wheat and raises beef cattle on more than 1,000 acres. But Bell, who voted for President Trump, says soaring prices for fuel,… pic.twitter.com/9ELYXkJywt
— CBS News (@CBSNews) September 18, 2026
Bell, who voted for Trump, said he feels "misled" and "strung along" when it comes to the president's rationale for attacking Iran without congressional authorization in February.
The North Carolina farmer said his costs for diesel fuel have doubled in the last year, driven in large part by Trump's war.
According to data released Friday by the American Automobile Association, the average price of diesel in the US now stands at a record-high $6.45 per gallon, a 74% increase of the average price of diesel one year ago.
"We are fighting for survival," Bell emphasized, "and we're running out of options."
Bell is far from the only farmer struggling.
Theresa Sisung, commodity and regulatory relations manager at the Michigan Farm Bureau, said in an interview with Up North Live that farmers in the state are about to "use a ton of fuel on their farms" due to the start of harvest season, making the record-high diesel prices particularly inconvenient.
"We have seen a slight increase in farm bankruptcies across the nation," said Sisung. "We are seeing those farms that are more stressed. We've had some negative margins for farms for a few years now, so there is certainly stress out in the countryside."
Michigan farmer Russell Ketchum told Up North Live that the high diesel prices have made what was already a challenging year and farming even more difficult.
"We started out the year with a lot of cold weather, a lot of freeze damage," Ketchum explained, "so we've been working on short crops all year and then the diesel fuel prices and the gas prices all on top of that, they made everything challenging to say the least."
North Dakota farmer Chris McDonald told the North Dakota Monitor in an interview published Wednesday that diesel prices have climbed so high that they "can erase your profit."
McDonald also tied the increase in diesel costs directly to Trump's war, which the president said would only last a matter of weeks but has since dragged on for more than six months.
"I think a lot of people expected that maybe the war would wrap up," said McDonald, "and the prices would go down some, and they never really did drop very much. Then it just skyrocketed.”
The Iran War isn't the only Trump policy that's hurting US agriculture and bringing pain to US farming families, as a Tuesday NPR report highlighted the impact that the president's trade war with Canada is having on farmers in Montana.
As noted by NPR, Canada is Montana's biggest trading partner, as it accounts for "$1 billion in cross-border sales." But the tariffs imposed by Trump, and the counter-tariffs imposed by Canada, have both harmed Montana farmers' sales and made the equipment they buy more expensive.
Steve Sheffels, a Montana wheat farmer, told NPR that he'd like to buy "a new drill" and some "grain bins that come out of Canada," but now fears that "I won't be able to afford them" thanks to the trade war.
Sheffels, whose wife is Canadian, also told NPR that he was not happy to see America's relationship with its largest trading partner deteriorate throughout Trump's second term.
"You don't treat your neighbors like this," he said.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Working Families Foot Trump's Bill Twice' as Fed Hikes Rates Amid Worsening Affordability Crisis
One campaigner asserted that Trump's "recklessness in the White House has pushed working families’ budgets to their breaking point."
Sep 16, 2026
The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time since 2023, prompting renewed criticism from progressive economists and Democratic lawmakers who argue that President Donald Trump’s tariffs and warmongering are fueling inflation and further squeezing working families.
The 12-member Federal Open Market Committee unanimously lifted its federal funds target range by a quarter percentage point, to 3.75-4%, while signaling that it could raise the rate again to around 4.1% in the coming months. Fed officials cited persistently elevated inflation and said the move would support a “timelier return” to their 2% inflation target.
The increase came despite months of pressure from President Donald Trump for the central bank to cut rates. Trump has repeatedly demanded substantially lower borrowing costs, including calling for rates as low as 1%, while accusing the Fed of holding rates too high.
"Interest Rates in the United States should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World—BY FAR," Trump said on his Truth Social network in response to the hike. "Our Country is BOOMING with new Investment! If we stopped Trading with every country that we have a Deficit with, which is most of them, we would make, at least, 1.5 Trillion Dollars a year."
The United States is actually rated AA+ by S&P and Fitch—which is not the "best credit in the world" by any measure. Numerous nations have AAA ratings from major agencies, the highest level of creditworthiness.
"The word 'Deficit' is nothing more than a fancy word for LOSS," Trump added. "We are 'carrying' almost every country in the World, and that cannot go on any longer. LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!"
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh—whom Trump tapped to lead the central bank—nonetheless backed the increase. The Fed's latest projections indicate that inflation will remain above its target and that most officials anticipate at least one additional rate increase before the end of the year.
The rate hike means consumers and businesses will face higher borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and other debt. The average 30-year mortgage rate had already risen above 7% by Wednesday.
Referring to the worsening affordability crisis caused by Trump administration choices like tariffs and the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran, the progressive economic advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative lamented how "working families foot Trump's bill twice."
Trump's "never-ending war with Iran and his chaotic tariffs have driven inflation high enough that his own pick for chairman raised rates anyway, in a unanimous vote—a decision that will lead to higher borrowing costs for families and small businesses but does little to combat high prices from Trump’s economic mismanagement," the group said in a statement.
Groundwork Collaborative chief economist Breyon Williams said that "Trump can deny, disparage, and deflect from Americans’ economic reality all he wants, but there’s no hiding the truth: His recklessness in the White House has pushed working families’ budgets to their breaking point."
"Under his watch, inflation has skyrocketed, prices on essentials like gas and groceries have emptied wallets, and the labor market has lost steam," Williams added. "Today’s decision from the Federal Reserve confirms Americans’ fears of continued price pains to come, and its own forecast now says families will not see borrowing costs go down until 2028.”
Addressing the Fed rate hike, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday that "the chaos of Trump’s disastrous war and costly economic policies are drowning Americans in inflation. Trump has sown chaos in our economy, scared off potential investors, rattled our markets, and made it harder for American workers and businesses alike to succeed."
"Ever since taking office, Trump has taken aim at the Fed and other institutions designed to keep our economy stable and growing. That has only added to the economic chaos plaguing our country," he added. "But what does Trump care? Trump doesn’t care that Americans have to pay to more; he only cares about raking in as much money as he can off the presidency before Americans send him and his Republican Party packing."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during a Wednesday interview on CNN that "it's the American people who are paying the price" for Trump's policies.
"There is no happy solution at this moment based on interest rates," she added.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Fossil Fuel Advertising Contracts Hit Record High as Big Oil Pockets Billions From Iran War
"This is a war chest that will likely fund the next generation of fossil fuel communications campaigns."
Sep 16, 2026
The fossil fuel industry is raking in big profits thanks to President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, and a new analysis finds that it's plugging a sizable chunk of these gains into propaganda.
A report published by Clean Creatives on Wednesday reveals that fossil fuel firms across the world have "engaged 802 advertising and PR agencies to shape corporate and public opinion about their products and services," over the last two years.
Clean Creatives, which has been tracking fossil fuel advertising contacts since 2021, said that the 1,321 contracts it recorded in 2025 and 2026 were the highest total it had ever recorded.
Laura Ranzato, executive director of Clean Creatives, pointed out that the industry's advertising splurge is coming on the backs of global consumers, who have been forced to shell out more money for gasoline and diesel after Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz to commercial vessels in response to Trump's unlawful attacks.
"Shell, BP, and Saudi Aramco are posting their highest quarterly profits in years on the back of the war in Iran and the energy supply shocks that followed," Ranzato explained. "This is a war chest that will likely fund the next generation of fossil fuel communications campaigns."
Ranzato also slammed advertising firms for continuing to rake in fossil fuel cash even as the impacts of the climate crisis become more severe.
"With a Godzilla El Niño on the horizon, wildfire smoke, and record heatwaves... agencies face a real choice," she said. "They can take fossil fuel war profits and help oil majors maintain their social license a few more years, or they can get on the right side of a transition that is already winning on price, speed, and investment."
Nayantara Dutta, head of research at Clean Creatives, said it was "startling" to see the advertising industry lining up to take fossil fuel money "even as it acknowledges the need for climate solutions."
"All this time, creative work has continued to follow the same themes across different global markets," Duttas said, "rather than meaningfully responding to the climate crisis."
The Guardian last month published an analysis estimating that the world's eight largest oil producers raked in a combined $93 billion in the first three months of the Iran War, nearly double the profits they reported over the same period one year prior.
According to the most recent estimate from Brown University’s Watson School for International Public Affairs, the Iran War has now cost nearly $108 billion in additional fuel expenses for the public, averaging more than $823 per US household.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Report Details How Trump Mass Deportation Agenda Is Fueling US Affordability Crisis
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said an advocate at the ACLU.
Sep 16, 2026
The Trump administration has billed its "mass deportation" agenda as a necessity to bring about an age of prosperity for US-born workers. But a new report suggests it's actually doing the opposite—exacerbating an already severe affordability crisis by suppressing wages, killing jobs, and raising costs.
On Wednesday, the ACLU and AFL-CIO published an analysis examining how the administration's unprecedented deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to communities around the country has not only created a climate of fear, but also caused labor shortages, reduced economic activity, and given employers new tools to suppress employees' wages.
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said Naureen Shah, director of government affairs at the ACLU's equality division.
Previous national data has already shown that, contrary to the Trump administration's argument that rounding up immigrant laborers simply creates room for those born in the US, areas that have experienced increases in ICE activity have also seen employment reductions for US-born workers.
"In our interdependent labor market, harm to one group of workers spills over to all those who labor alongside them or within the same supply chain, regardless of immigration status. Roughly 1 in 5 workers in our country is an immigrant, spanning all sectors of the economy," the report explains.
"Targeting this large and vital segment of the workforce sharply reduces the supply of labor, threatening the ability of employers to generate revenue and cover business expenses, including the wages of any remaining workers," it continues.
Reducing the labor supply consequently reduces production. The report argues that this is why industries with large numbers of immigrant laborers have seen skyrocketing costs for their products nationwide.
Data from previous deportation surges during the Obama administration shows that immigration enforcement has reduced construction labor, resulting in nearly 2,000 fewer completed homes on average and an 18% increase in home prices.
In June 2026, data showed that while core inflation was just 2.6% over the previous year, prices had shot up much more dramatically in immigrant-heavy sectors: The cost of lettuce was up 32.1%, landscaping was up 10.8%, home health care climbed 10.7%, whole milk increased 9%, and canned fruit jumped 7.9%.
The report also argues that ICE surges, which have often involved racial profiling and indiscriminate targeting, use of excessive force, and arrests of US citizens, have created terror in communities that suppresses economic activity.
A May working paper from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, which examined nearly 5,400 raids around the country during 2025, showed that areas targeted by ICE raids experienced a 2.7% decline in foot traffic and a 6.2% decline in spending per business per week, which the author extrapolated would amount to 8.1 billion fewer visits and as much as $14 billion in forgone spending annually across the nation.
US-born employees in sectors with large numbers of immigrant workers were hit especially hard. Data from "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota earlier this year demonstrates this in miniature.
Research released in June by the Upjohn Institute estimated that the surge of immigration agents cost the state’s leisure-and-hospitality sector 4,600 jobs, 3.8 million work hours, and $71 million in wages between January and March.
Economist Exequiel Hernandez, quoted in the ACLU/AFL-CIO report, said these findings highlight the danger of creating an "economy of fear."
"If fewer people are showing up to work, they’re making less income, they’re spending less," he explained. "If they’re spending less, businesses have to cut back in hiring and selling, and it’s really quite damaging."
The report cites projections from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) last year on what this could mean if the Trump administration meets its target of deporting 1 million people per year.
Using data from previous immigration enforcement studies, the EPI estimated that nearly 6 million fewer people could be employed by the end of President Donald Trump's second term if the administration follows through on its deportation promises. That includes 3.3 million immigrants, but also 2.6 million US-born workers, many of whom are working in immigrant-heavy sectors.
The report argues that a pathway to citizenship rather than deportation would not only be a more humane solution, but also deliver economic benefits that ripple through the economy, including for US-born residents.
It cites projections that allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens would increase US gross domestic product (GDP) by nearly $2 trillion over a decade and generate hundreds of billions in new tax revenue.
This is because legalization would allow workers to move into jobs that better match their skills rather than being confined to low-paying jobs that tend to accept them. It would also remove immigration enforcement as a threat that employers could use to suppress wages, both for immigrant and US-born workers.
"Working people are paying the price for an immigration system that is destabilizing entire industries and communities and making it easier to exploit workers,” said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. “As this report demonstrates, a broad pathway to citizenship for all would raise wages, create more and better jobs, and strengthen our economy in ways that help all of us."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Vulnerable Countries Spend Nearly 25 Times More Repaying Debt Than on Climate Action
One ActionAid campaigner said rich nations should "cancel unjust and unsustainable debt, stop making countries borrow to survive climate impacts, and deliver climate finance as grants rather than loans."
Sep 16, 2026
The world's most climate-vulnerable nations are spending nearly 25 times more on servicing their debts than on addressing the climate emergency, an ActionAid International report released Wednesday revealed, underscoring what the advocacy group called a "vicious cycle" of debt, disasters, and underinvestment.
The report, "Debt Fuels the Climate Crisis: How the Finance Flows," examines government revenues, debt payments, national budgets, and climate plans in the 65 countries considered most vulnerable to climate change. The authors found that debt servicing consumes 65% of these nations' combined government revenue, while 93.5% of the countries are either in debt distress or facing a significant risk of it.
"Climate-vulnerable countries are being forced to spend nearly 25 times as much on repaying debt as on climate action," the report states. "Indeed, in 2026 total debt servicing on external and domestic debt in these countries is nearly four times that of spending on education, nearly seven times that of health, and nearly six times that of social protection."
🚨 New ActionAid analysis: countries facing the worst climate disasters are spending nearly 25 times more on debt than on climate action. That is not an accident. It is how the global debt system is built right now. Full findings 👉 https://bit.ly/4Acxh0c#ClimateJustice #FundOurFuture #DebtJustice
[image or embed]
— ActionAid USA (@aausa.bsky.social) September 16, 2026 at 6:31 AM
The disparity is even greater when comparing debt payments with climate grants. ActionAid estimated that countries in the Global South will make approximately $8.8 trillion in debt repayments in 2026, compared with just $39 billion in grant-based climate finance received in 2024—a ratio of roughly 225 to 1.
"For too long, the debt and climate crises have been treated separately," ActionAid International secretary-general Arthur Larok said in a statement. "This research exposes how tightly they are connected and quantifies the devastating cost involved. Yet this is a crisis we can fix."
The report—whose release coincides with the Global Week of Climate Action—highlights how climate disasters frequently force already indebted nations to borrow even more money for recovery and reconstruction. Subsequent debt payments and austerity measures forced upon them by global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank then restrict their spending on climate resilience, public services, and clean energy transitions.
As the report notes:
Even though the IMF recognizes that there is a "development crisis," the IMF refuses to even talk about a systemic debt crisis—because for them and their shareholders, there is no systemic crisis so long as there is no significant default and creditors are being paid. Moreover, the IMF thrives on countries needing to come to them for bailout loans, as this expands their own power and influence. The IMF is both a creditor and a debt collector, serving its own interests and those of its main shareholders in the Global North—making it both judge and jury when it comes to debt renegotiation processes.
The report also details how Global South governments under pressure to generate foreign currency can expand fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture, potentially worsening the climate pressures that contributed to their debt in the first place.
“Debt is a triple whammy for the climate: It drives fossil fuel and industrial agriculture expansion, blocks vital climate action, and leaves communities dangerously exposed when disasters strike," ActionAid International global climate justice lead Teresa Anderson said Wednesday.
"This is a toxic relationship," she added. "Countries borrow to rebuild, austerity weakens their resilience, and repayment pressures push more extraction, fueling the next disaster. We need a breakup: Cancel unjust and unsustainable debt, stop making countries borrow to survive climate impacts, and deliver climate finance as grants rather than loans. This vicious cycle can and must be broken.”
“Debt is a triple whammy for the climate."
In Senegal, the imbalance is particularly stark. ActionAid said the government is spending $605 on debt servicing for every $1 budgeted for climate action, while debt payments consume more than 96% of government revenue.
"Behind these figures are impossible choices between servicing debt and investing in agroecology, public services, and climate resilience," ActionAid Senegal director Khaita Sylla said Wednesday. "Women and girls who bear the brunt of climate impacts are then disproportionately affected by cuts in public services even as they lead solutions for a more resilient future.”
ActionAid is calling on governments and international institutions to take steps including:
- Canceling unpayable or unjust debt for countries spending more than 10% of their revenues on external debt repayments;
- Agreeing on a universal rule enabling the suspension of debt payments for any country hit by a climate disaster;
- Creating a United Nations Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt that gives indebted countries an equal voice;
- Requiring private creditors to take part in meaningful debt restructuring;
- Regulating credit rating agencies to remove conflicts of interest and bias;
- Ensuring that climate finance comes in the form of grants, not loans or any other debt-creating financial instruments;
- Reforming debt-sustainability assessments so that climate responses, public services, and human rights are central to decisions about what countries can afford to repay; and
- Conducting public debt and climate audits in countries facing debt crises to examine how domestic and external debt deepen climate impacts, poverty, and exclusion—particularly for women and girls—and identify actions to break the cycle.
“Rich countries like the US have outsized global financial power," ActionAid USA executive director Niranjali Amerasinghe said on Wednesday. "Their lack of willingness to provide climate finance at scale and relieve the debt burden of climate-vulnerable countries is unconscionable."
"There are trillions for defense budgets," Amerasinghe added, "but peanuts for the biggest existential crisis of a generation.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy