

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.
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020;
or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
NOMI PRINS
Prins is a former investment banker turned journalist. She used to run
the European analytics group at Bear Stearns and has also worked at
Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. She has written extensively about
the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had regulated the
financial industry since the New Deal. A photo of Clinton signing the repeal is online.
NOMI PRINS
Prins is a former investment banker turned journalist. She used to run
the European analytics group at Bear Stearns and has also worked at
Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. She has written extensively about
the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had regulated the
financial industry since the New Deal. A photo of Clinton signing the repeal is online.
"On November 12, 1999, as President Bill Clinton signed into law, and
former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Texas Senator
and Banking Committee head Phil Gramm (now a top McCain adviser), and
the rest of the captains of Congress gleefully applauded their final
dissolution of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, there is a question that
must be asked.
"Did they even consider that as [quoting Clinton at the ceremony]
'Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of
financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new
economy,' they'd also be free to self-destruct, taking down with them
the general economy and international confidence in the U.S. banking
system amidst immense greed, overleveraged capital, poor transparency,
and complete lack of judgment?
"Or did they simply not care?
"Notably absent from the ceremony was former Treasury Secretary and
co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin. Three weeks before the
signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that he had championed and that
officially repealed Glass-Steagall, he rushed off to take on a plush
vice-chairmanship position at Citigroup [which had merged with
Travelers Insurance] -- the institution that first benefited most from
the repeal. Rubin is now a top adviser to Obama."
Prins is now a senior fellow at Demos. She is the author of two books: Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America and Jacked: How Conservatives Are Picking Your Pocket. Her recent articles include " As Wall Street Collapses: Will Washington Get a Clue?" and "Which Investment Bank will Be Next?"
MICHAEL HUDSON
President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, Hudson is author of Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.
His writings and interviews of him regularly appear on
CounterPunch.org, and an in-depth piece of his titled "Saving
Capitalism" is forthcoming in the next edition of Harper's magazine. He
appeared Wednesday on Democracy Now.
More Information
JOHN SAKOWICZ
Host of "The Truth About Money" on NPR affiliate KZYX, Sakowicz is a
former trader and cofounder of a multibillion-dollar offshore hedge
fund Battle Mountain Research Group; he also worked for Spear Leeds
Kellogg, now a division of Goldman Sachs, and Merrill Lynch. His recent
articles include "The Fannie and Freddie Flip."
JANE D'ARISTA
D'Arista is an economic analyst at the Financial Markets Center,
which monitors the Federal Reserve as well as financial markets. She
said today: "The ongoing interventions by the Treasury and Fed to
assist institutions and bolster confidence in U.S. financial markets
illustrate many of the problems that have been spawned by deregulation,
unfettered innovation and failure to analyze the implications of the
shift from a bank-based to a market-based financial system. The Fed's
unprecedented loan to a large, global insurance company is a case in
point. The tipping point for AIG is its role as a major counterparty in
derivatives markets -- the various trillion-dollar non-public,
non-transparent markets in which the more important institutions in all
sectors have become interrelated through the process of buying and
selling various forms of financial insurance to one another. Having
been allowed to develop outside the framework of exchange or
clearinghouse structures, over-the-counter derivatives contracts pose a
systemic risk by virtue of the fact that they cannot be sold; existing
positions must be hedged by buying or selling even more contracts,
pushing up the nominal value of outstandings to immense proportions and
increasing interdependency (and the potential domino effect) within the
global system.
"The systemic effects that flow from AIG's sizable share of outstanding
contracts result from the procyclical downward pressure imposed by the
rules of the game in a market-based system: declining prices for the
assets backing the contracts mean additional collateral must be posted;
writedowns of asset values require charges against capital; the decline
in capital triggers a drop in credit ratings that dries up funding,
raising the cost of what little credit can be obtained while making it
more difficult to raise additional capital.
"AIG warned last week that this scenario might play out if Lehman --
one of the ten largest parties in the $62 trillion market for credit
default swaps -- went down. It did and it has. But is the loan to AIG
the end? Where are the plans to deal with the systemic effects these
markets have posed since the demise of Long Term Capital Management a
decade ago? Ignoring the root of the problem can only increase the
likelihood of more interventions. It is already a minute past midnight
on the clock for reform."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."