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.
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks at a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo on May 23, 2022. (Photo: Nicolas Datiche/Sipa Press/Pool/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Critics of U.S. imperialism sounded the alarm Monday after President Joe Biden said that he would use military force in response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
"That's the commitment we made," Biden said at a press conference held jointly with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida during a visit to Tokyo, abandoning the "strategic ambiguity" that U.S. presidents have long maintained to obscure how far Washington would go to protect Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory.
"We agreed with the One China policy, we signed on to it," said Biden, "but the idea that [Taiwan] can be taken by force... it's just not appropriate."
Biden has provided billions of dollars in weapons to help Ukraine stave off Russia's ongoing military assault but refused to deploy U.S. troops for fear of triggering a direct confrontation between the world's leading nuclear powers. However, he said Monday, the U.S. would go further on behalf of Taiwan.
"You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons," a reporter said to Biden. "Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?"
"Yes," Biden responded tersely. The president argued that the need for the U.S. to intervene in Taiwan if China attacks the island is "even stronger" following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As the New York Times reported:
The White House quickly tried to deny that the president meant what he seemed to be saying. "As the president said, our policy has not changed," the White House said in a statement hurriedly sent to reporters. "He reiterated our One China Policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself."
But Mr. Biden's comments went beyond simply reiterating that the United States would provide Taiwan with arms, because the question was posed as a contrast to what he had done with Ukraine. The president made no effort to qualify what he intended when he agreed that he would "get involved militarily."
"It is truly dangerous for the president to keep misstating U.S. policy toward Taiwan," historian Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media. "How many more times will this happen?"
This is not the first time Biden has "ignored the practiced imprecision of his predecessors with regard to China and Taiwan," the Times noted.
Last August, in an attempt to reassure allies following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Biden promised that "we would respond" if a fellow NATO member were attacked. "Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan," he added.
However, the Times reported:
Taiwan... has never been granted the same U.S. security guarantees as Japan, South Korea, or America's NATO allies, and so the comment was seen as significant. Two months later, Mr. Biden was asked during a televised town hall if the United States would protect Taiwan from attack. "Yes, we have a commitment to do that," he said. That also set off a frantic scramble by the White House to walk back his remark by insisting that he was not changing longstanding policy.
According to Wertheim, "The West's robust response to Russian aggression in Ukraine could serve to deter China from invading Taiwan."
"But Biden's statement risks undoing the potential benefit and instead helping to bring about a Taiwan conflict," he stressed. "Self-injurious and entirely unforced."
The president's remarks came just before he formally unveiled the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), a new 13-nation trade pact meant to advance U.S. corporate interests and counter Chinese influence in the region. Though it excludes Taiwan in a diplomatic nod to China, the IPEF has already been criticized by the Trade Justice Education Fund for partnering with countries that have "abysmal labor rights records."
"Biden escalates tensions through a trade deal to secure U.S. interests in Asia and the Pacific and threatens U.S. military retaliation against China," tweeted journalist Nick Estes. "The forever war continues."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Critics of U.S. imperialism sounded the alarm Monday after President Joe Biden said that he would use military force in response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
"That's the commitment we made," Biden said at a press conference held jointly with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida during a visit to Tokyo, abandoning the "strategic ambiguity" that U.S. presidents have long maintained to obscure how far Washington would go to protect Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory.
"We agreed with the One China policy, we signed on to it," said Biden, "but the idea that [Taiwan] can be taken by force... it's just not appropriate."
Biden has provided billions of dollars in weapons to help Ukraine stave off Russia's ongoing military assault but refused to deploy U.S. troops for fear of triggering a direct confrontation between the world's leading nuclear powers. However, he said Monday, the U.S. would go further on behalf of Taiwan.
"You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons," a reporter said to Biden. "Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?"
"Yes," Biden responded tersely. The president argued that the need for the U.S. to intervene in Taiwan if China attacks the island is "even stronger" following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As the New York Times reported:
The White House quickly tried to deny that the president meant what he seemed to be saying. "As the president said, our policy has not changed," the White House said in a statement hurriedly sent to reporters. "He reiterated our One China Policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself."
But Mr. Biden's comments went beyond simply reiterating that the United States would provide Taiwan with arms, because the question was posed as a contrast to what he had done with Ukraine. The president made no effort to qualify what he intended when he agreed that he would "get involved militarily."
"It is truly dangerous for the president to keep misstating U.S. policy toward Taiwan," historian Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media. "How many more times will this happen?"
This is not the first time Biden has "ignored the practiced imprecision of his predecessors with regard to China and Taiwan," the Times noted.
Last August, in an attempt to reassure allies following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Biden promised that "we would respond" if a fellow NATO member were attacked. "Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan," he added.
However, the Times reported:
Taiwan... has never been granted the same U.S. security guarantees as Japan, South Korea, or America's NATO allies, and so the comment was seen as significant. Two months later, Mr. Biden was asked during a televised town hall if the United States would protect Taiwan from attack. "Yes, we have a commitment to do that," he said. That also set off a frantic scramble by the White House to walk back his remark by insisting that he was not changing longstanding policy.
According to Wertheim, "The West's robust response to Russian aggression in Ukraine could serve to deter China from invading Taiwan."
"But Biden's statement risks undoing the potential benefit and instead helping to bring about a Taiwan conflict," he stressed. "Self-injurious and entirely unforced."
The president's remarks came just before he formally unveiled the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), a new 13-nation trade pact meant to advance U.S. corporate interests and counter Chinese influence in the region. Though it excludes Taiwan in a diplomatic nod to China, the IPEF has already been criticized by the Trade Justice Education Fund for partnering with countries that have "abysmal labor rights records."
"Biden escalates tensions through a trade deal to secure U.S. interests in Asia and the Pacific and threatens U.S. military retaliation against China," tweeted journalist Nick Estes. "The forever war continues."
Critics of U.S. imperialism sounded the alarm Monday after President Joe Biden said that he would use military force in response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
"That's the commitment we made," Biden said at a press conference held jointly with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida during a visit to Tokyo, abandoning the "strategic ambiguity" that U.S. presidents have long maintained to obscure how far Washington would go to protect Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory.
"We agreed with the One China policy, we signed on to it," said Biden, "but the idea that [Taiwan] can be taken by force... it's just not appropriate."
Biden has provided billions of dollars in weapons to help Ukraine stave off Russia's ongoing military assault but refused to deploy U.S. troops for fear of triggering a direct confrontation between the world's leading nuclear powers. However, he said Monday, the U.S. would go further on behalf of Taiwan.
"You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons," a reporter said to Biden. "Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?"
"Yes," Biden responded tersely. The president argued that the need for the U.S. to intervene in Taiwan if China attacks the island is "even stronger" following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As the New York Times reported:
The White House quickly tried to deny that the president meant what he seemed to be saying. "As the president said, our policy has not changed," the White House said in a statement hurriedly sent to reporters. "He reiterated our One China Policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself."
But Mr. Biden's comments went beyond simply reiterating that the United States would provide Taiwan with arms, because the question was posed as a contrast to what he had done with Ukraine. The president made no effort to qualify what he intended when he agreed that he would "get involved militarily."
"It is truly dangerous for the president to keep misstating U.S. policy toward Taiwan," historian Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media. "How many more times will this happen?"
This is not the first time Biden has "ignored the practiced imprecision of his predecessors with regard to China and Taiwan," the Times noted.
Last August, in an attempt to reassure allies following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Biden promised that "we would respond" if a fellow NATO member were attacked. "Same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan," he added.
However, the Times reported:
Taiwan... has never been granted the same U.S. security guarantees as Japan, South Korea, or America's NATO allies, and so the comment was seen as significant. Two months later, Mr. Biden was asked during a televised town hall if the United States would protect Taiwan from attack. "Yes, we have a commitment to do that," he said. That also set off a frantic scramble by the White House to walk back his remark by insisting that he was not changing longstanding policy.
According to Wertheim, "The West's robust response to Russian aggression in Ukraine could serve to deter China from invading Taiwan."
"But Biden's statement risks undoing the potential benefit and instead helping to bring about a Taiwan conflict," he stressed. "Self-injurious and entirely unforced."
The president's remarks came just before he formally unveiled the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), a new 13-nation trade pact meant to advance U.S. corporate interests and counter Chinese influence in the region. Though it excludes Taiwan in a diplomatic nod to China, the IPEF has already been criticized by the Trade Justice Education Fund for partnering with countries that have "abysmal labor rights records."
"Biden escalates tensions through a trade deal to secure U.S. interests in Asia and the Pacific and threatens U.S. military retaliation against China," tweeted journalist Nick Estes. "The forever war continues."
"Equipment manufacturers like John Deere have lost millions, but let's remember that working people are hit hardest by the president's disastrous economic policies," said one lawmaker.
US President Donald Trump has pitched his tariffs on foreign goods as a way to bring more manufacturing jobs back into the United States.
However, it now appears as though the tariffs are hurting the manufacturing jobs that are already here.
As reported by Des Moines Register, iconic American machinery company John Deere announced on Monday that it is laying off 71 workers in Waterloo, Iowa, as well as 115 people in East Moline, Illinois, and 52 workers in Moline, Illinois. The paper noted that John Deere has laid off more than 2,000 employees since April 2024.
In its announcement of the layoffs, the company said that "the struggling [agriculture] economy continues to impact orders" for its equipment.
"This is a challenging time for many farmers, growers, and producers, and directly impacts our business in the near term," the company emphasized.
According to The New Republic, Cory Reed, president of John Deere's Worldwide Agriculture and Turf Division, said during the company's most recent earnings call that the uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariffs has led to many farmers putting off investments in farm equipment.
"If you have customers that are concerned about what their end markets are going to look like in a tariff environment, they're waiting to see the outcomes of what these trade deals look like," he explained.
Josh Beal, John Deere's director of investor relations, similarly said that "the primary drivers" for the company's negative outlook from the prior quarter "are increased tariff rates on Europe, India, and steel and aluminum."
The news of the layoffs drew a scathing rebuke from Nathan Sage, an Iowa Democrat running for the US Senate to unseat Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who has praised the president's tariff policies.
"John Deere is once again laying off Iowans—a clear sign economic uncertainty hits the working class hardest, not the CEOs at the top," he wrote in a post on X. "Cheered on by Joni Ernst, Republicans in Washington want to play games with tariffs and give tax cuts to billionaires while Iowa families continue to struggle. It's time to stop protecting the top 1% and fight for the working people who keep our economy strong."
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) also ripped Trump's trade policies for hurting blue-collar jobs.
"Because of Trump's tariffs, farmers can't afford to buy what they need to make a living," he said. "Equipment manufacturers like John Deere have lost millions, but let's remember that working people are hit hardest by the president's disastrous economic policies. Tired of 'winning' yet?"
John Deere is not the only big-name American manufacturer to be harmed by the Trump tariffs, as all three of the country's major auto manufacturers in recent months have announced they expect to take significant financial hits from them.
Ford last month said that its profit could plunge by up to 36% this year as it expects to take a $2 billion hit from the president's tariffs on key inputs such as steel and aluminum, as well as taxes on car components manufactured in Canada and Mexico.
General Motors last month also cited the Trump tariffs as a major reason why its profits fell by $3 billion the previous quarter. Making matters worse, GM said that the impact of the tariffs would be even more significant in the coming quarter when its profits could tumble by as much as $5 billion.
GM's warning came shortly after Jeep manufacturer Stellantis projected that the Trump tariffs would directly lead to $350 million in losses in the first half of 2025.
Roger Alford, who was fired over his objections to a corrupt tech merger last month, said MAGA lobbyists and DOJ officials are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves."
An antitrust lawyer fired from the US Department of Justice last month accused Attorney General Pam Bondi's underlings on Monday of giving MAGA-aligned corporate lobbyists the ability to "rule" over antitrust enforcement.
Roger Alford, formerly the deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's antitrust division, was ousted in July, reportedly for "insubordination" after he objected to the involvement of politically connected lobbyists in the $14 billion merger between Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued in January to block the merger, arguing that HPE's acquisition of Juniper would unlawfully stifle competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm innovation, since the two entities control over 70% of the wi-fi relied on by large companies, hospitals, universities, and other entities.
But that suit was resolved in June in what the Capitol Forum described as a "highly unusual settlement" in which Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, overruled the DOJ's antitrust chief, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, to allow the deal to settle.
At the time, left-wing consumer advocates, like Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argued that the deal was "a corrupt and politically rigged merger settlement," which came after political operatives tied to Trump lobbied on behalf of the company.
Despite still describing himself as a staunch MAGA loyalist, Alford likewise feels that the settlement was a "scandal."
In a speech delivered Monday at the Technology Policy Institute in Aspen, Colorado, he said senior DOJ officials "perverted justice and acted inconsistently with the rule of law" by allowing "corrupt lobbyists" to hijack the process.
According to disclosures from HPE, it hired multiple top Trump allies as lobbyists to advocate for the merger. These included MAGA influencer Mike Davis—a right-wing critic of Big Tech and a notorious legal operative responsible for many of Trump's judicial nominations—and Arthur Schwartz, a close adviser and confidante to Donald Trump, Jr. and JD Vance.
According to reporting from the conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in UnHerd last month, which cites one unnamed senior official, the DOJ's merger settlement was the product of "boozy backroom meetings between company lawyers and lobbyists, on one hand, and officials from elsewhere in the Department of Justice, on the other."
As Ahmari explained:
"Boozy backroom deal" here isn't a figure of speech, by the way. It captures what literally took place, according to the former official, who described a meeting between government officials and lobbyists that took place at one of Washington's "private city clubs" over cocktails.
In an essay for UnHerd adapted from his speech, Alford berated these "MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists and the DOJ officials enabling them," who he said are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves as long as their friends are in power."
The current DOJ, Alford continued, has allowed for the "rule of lobbyists" to supplant the "rule of law." While he says this was not true of those idealists serving with him in the antitrust division—including his embattled former boss, Slater—he says that others in the DOJ showed "special solicitude" to lobbyists they perceived to be on the "same MAGA team."
"Too often in the current DOJ," he said, "meetings are accepted and decisions are made depending upon whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend. Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence-peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement."
Alford makes a distinction between these corrupt officials and those he calls "genuine MAGA reformers" who "strive to remain true to President Trump's populist message that resonated with working-class Americans."
While he does not group Bondi in with the officials he deems corrupt, he does blame her for having "delegated authority to figures—such as her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, and Associate Attorney General-Designee Stanley Woodward—who don't share her commitment to a single tier of justice for all."
"Some progressives may blanche at Alford's praise for [US President Donald] Trump's populist messaging, and insistence that it has been subverted by top DOJ officials selling out to lobbyists," writes David Dayen in the American Prospect.
But Dayen notes that Alford's audience is not progressives and that he is instead "attempting to reach the president and his inner circle by playing on Trump's demand for total loyalty."
The merger between HPE and Juniper can still be stopped under the Tunney Act, which requires it to be reviewed by a federal judge to determine whether settlements brought in federal "antitrust" cases are in the "public interest."
While the Capital Forum says this process is typically a "rubber stamp," they wrote that "given the settlement's atypical substance and process, plus third parties who may be motivated to intervene and a judge who may be inclined to approach the review skeptically, what's normally a quick judicial signoff could turn into a fraught process with wide-reaching implications."
"Indeed, the court should block the HPE-Juniper merger," Alford said. "If you knew what I know, you would hope so, too."
"She won't hold a town hall, she won't take questions," said one protester. "She's never in her office."
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) got a hostile reception on Monday when she attended an event in the city of Plattsburgh, New York.
As reported by local news station NBC 5, Stefanik was in the city to pay tribute to the late Clinton County Clerk John Zurlo, who died this past December at the age of 86.
During the event, protesters mostly sat in silence until it was Stefanik's turn to speak. At that point, they erupted in angry boos as audience members shouted, "Shame on her!", "You sold us out!", and "Go home!" Demonstrators could also be heard calling Stefanik a "traitor."
Yikes – @EliseStefanik literally got booed off the stage TWICE at an event in her district today.
She hasn't hosted a #NY21 town hall in years. Now we know why. pic.twitter.com/4hsIZmbJyC
— Addison Dick (@addisondick0) August 18, 2025
All told, NBC 5 estimated that at least half of the crowd at the event were there to protest against Stefanik.
After the event, Stefanik lashed out at the protesters who jeered her and forced her off the stage.
"Today's event was about honoring John Zurlo," she said. "It is a disgusting disgrace that this is what the far left does. Rather than understanding that his family has been through a tremendous amount. It was about honoring his legacy."
However, some demonstrators who spoke with NBC 5 countered that they had no other way to reach the congresswoman given that she hasn't held a town hall in several months.
"She has not shown up in our district for months and months," protester Mavis Agnew explained. "She won't hold a town hall, she won't take questions. She's never in her office. People show up at her office constantly, door's closed. Her representatives, her employees won't talk to [us]... So this was her first appearance, the first opportunity we had to let her know we're unhappy."
Other protesters singled out Stefanik's support for the GOP's massive budget package that cut $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade and is already endangering the finances of hospitals around the country, including in New York state.
"With the recent cuts that have just been passed, we're all going to be affected by rural hospitals," said protester Jesse Murnane. "Hudson Headwaters [Health Network] potentially being affected, our only clinics available to patients. That's important to me."
The New York Democratic Party was quick to ridicule Stefanik for the angry reaction she displayed at the event.
"Stefanik couldn't handle the heat as she realized in real time that she can't escape her Fox News echo chamber forever while she raises prices, guts healthcare, and hurts New York families," the party said.
Despite the negative reaction to Stefanik at this week's event, she is in little danger of losing her congressional seat, as her district has repeatedly reelected her to office by double-digit margins and is labeled as a "safe Republican" district by Cook Political Report.
Stefanik has represented New York's 21st District since 2015. She is reportedly considering a run for governor in 2026 and said last month that she would reveal her plans after the November elections.