

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.

Whether Ron Kirk is a good choice for trade representative will be determined by his ability to deliver on President-elect Obama's pledges to the American public to create a new trade and globalization policy that benefits more Americans.
As a past supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), Kirk will face close scrutiny as he assumes the responsibility for delivering on Obama's pledges to fix existing trade agreements and create a new trade policy that benefits more people. Kirk's vocal opposition to Fast Track during his 2002 U.S. Senate race puts him in line with the majority view in Congress and positions him well to deliver on Obama's campaign pledge to replace Fast Track with a process that provides a greater role for Congress to ensure that American trade agreements promote the public interest.
Whatever Kirk's past views on various trade policies, his future course of action must reflect the powerful expectations for change created by Obama's trade reform pledges. His actions must also reflect the new political realities created by congressional elections that resulted in 71 House and Senate supporters of the trade status quo being replaced by those who were elected campaigning for a new approach. Scores of Democrats and Republicans used attacks on NAFTA and China PNTR to win elections nationwide this year and these candidates and the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees featured more than 140 television ads criticizing the trade status quo.
Kirk's first challenge will be negotiating at home to create a new American trade and globalization policy that benefits more Americans and thus gains the support of the public and Congress, a majority of whom oppose the status-quo model. Kirk's recognition that a new approach is needed was conveyed in a 2008 CNN interview, when he said that "we're never going to have a more responsible trade policy if we don't change the climate in Washington." The Democratic platform language reflects Obama's campaign pledges that trade agreements will not "stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications." This provides a starting place for Kirk's formulation of a new policy.
Among Kirk's challenges as U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will be to obtain modifications to existing agreements to both add improved labor and environmental standards and to remove numerous provisions that conflict with Obama's priority non-trade policy goals on health care, climate change, energy independence and more. To create the political space needed for Obama to succeed in these areas, aspects of the World Trade Organization agreements must be modified, including provisions covering procurement policy, service-sector regulation (including financial services and health care), food and product safety, access to affordable medicines and more. (See Public Citizen's report "Presidential Candidates' Key Proposals on Health Care and Climate Will Require WTO Modifications").
The unprecedented focus on trade and globalization reform during the recent elections reflects the consolidation of American public opinion that our current trade and globalization model needs a major overhaul. Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that a "free trade agreement" has had a negative effect on their families. Across every demographic, majorities oppose NAFTA including GOP voters who, by a two-to-one majority, agree that "[f]oreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products," according to a recent Wall Street Journal opinion poll.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," said one critic.
Conservative commentator Dave Rubin, who for months has been a top booster of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, was inundated with mockery on Sunday after a viral video exposed months' worth of his failed predictions about the conflict.
The video, which was posted on social media Saturday, begins with Rubin telling viewers to not listen to any of the prognostications being made by critics of the war, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from Congress.
"I'm pretty good with predictions," Rubin says. "And my prediction here is that everything the media is now going to say about Iran—it's going to close the Strait of Hormuz, and energy prices are going to go crazy—none of this is going to come to pass."
Iran war: greatest hits from the last 12 weeks pic.twitter.com/9pgXyvmsgF
— Dave Rubin Clips II (Parody) - Retired Jan.20/2025 (@DaveClips) May 24, 2026
The video then cuts to Rubin wrongly predicting that gas prices during the conflict "will continue to come down," before switching to claims that Iran lacks the military capability to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed in the face of US military power.
"If the United States wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, which it does," says Rubin, "and Donald Trump says we'll escort ships through if we have to, it's going to stay open."
From there, the video shows Rubin hyping of the prospect of Iranian dissident Reza Pahlavi swooping in to take over the country after the war, and then getting fooled by a fake artificial intelligence-generated video of Iranians giving thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bombing their country.
The video compilation of Rubin's failed predictions drew immediate ridicule from critics.
"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," joked Krystal Ball.
Commentator Adam Mockler wrote of Rubin that "it’s brutal watching him make failed predictions week after week."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald argued that the video should be the last nail in the coffin of whatever credibility Rubin had left.
"Imagine having sat through and listened to all of this Israeli propaganda, which turned out to be (predictably and completely) false," commented Greenwald, "and then thinking there was some value in continuing to listen to this person."
The Bulwark's Tim Miller said that while he knew Rubin was "a smooth-brained hack," he still "couldn’t even fathom how bad these war takes would be."
Political analyst Omar Baddar, meanwhile, said the video should erase any doubt that Rubin is "the dumbest man on the internet."
The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."