

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.

States convening at the United Nations for a high-level meeting on
Sudan on September 24, 2010, should press Sudanese authorities to ensure
that the forthcoming referendum on southern independence is free of the
human rights violations that marred the April elections, Human Rights
Watch said today.
More than 30 nations and international organizations are expected to
attend the meeting, convened by the UN secretary-general to coincide
with the annual General Assembly meetings. Delegates are expected to
express their support for the January 2011 referendum, which will
determine whether Southern Sudan remains part of Sudan or secedes and
becomes an independent nation.
"The delegates at the Sudan meeting should do more than confirm that
the referendum will happen on time," said Rona Peligal, Africa director
at Human Rights Watch. "This is also a prime opportunity for them to
insist on better human rights conditions in Sudan."
The April elections and the upcoming referendum for southern
independence are milestones in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement,
which ended 22 years of civil war in which an estimated 2 million people
lost their lives.
Human Rights Watch remains concerned about impunity for human rights
violations by security forces across Sudan, restrictions on civil and
political rights, and the treatment of minority groups throughout Sudan.
The two parties to the peace agreement - the ruling National Congress
Party (NCP) and the southern ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement
(SPLM) - should state publicly that they will not expel each other's
minorities in the event of secession, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates to the September 24 UN meeting should also address the deteriorating situation in Darfur.
"Focus on the southern referendum should not shift attention away
from the ongoing crises in Darfur," Peligal said. "The nations concerned
about the situation in Sudan need to press Khartoum now to end impunity
for ongoing human rights violations in Darfur."
Election-Related Violations
As Human Rights Watch has extensively documented, the national elections in April 2010
were deeply flawed. They were marred by human rights violations,
including restrictions on free speech and assembly, particularly in
northern Sudan. The elections also occasioned widespread intimidation,
arbitrary arrests, and physical violence against election monitors and
opponents of the ruling parties by Sudanese security forces across the
country.
In the period following the elections, the human rights situation
deteriorated further as the ruling party, using the National
Intelligence and Security Services, cracked down on opponents,
activists, and journalists in Khartoum and northern states. Human Rights
Watch documented additional cases of arbitrary arrests of activists in
August and September.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called on the Sudanese national
government to enact key human rights reforms required under the peace
agreement, such as reforming the repressive national security apparatus.
In Southern Sudan, election-related disputes sparked clashes between
the southern government army, the SPLM, and aggrieved candidates and
other opponents of the southern ruling party. In Jonglei state, for
example, General George Athor, who unsuccessfully ran for governor,
clashed with the southern army on multiple occasions. As of September,
large numbers of the southern army's soldiers were still deployed in
northern Jonglei state where civilians continue to report rape and other
abuses. Soldiers have also conducted violent operations against armed
groups aligned to opponents of the southern ruling party in Upper Nile
state, resulting in human rights violations there.
Both national and Southern Sudanese authorities should hold their
security forces accountable for human rights violations that occurred
during and after the elections, Human Rights Watch said.
Civil and Political Rights Threatened
Although the head of the national security service in early August
lifted pre-print censorship, other restrictions on political expression
remain in place. During research in Sudan in August, Human Rights Watch
found that both in the northern states, where authorities support the
continued unity of Sudan, and in Southern Sudan, where authorities
support southern secession, journalists and civil society are not free
to speak openly about any opposition to the prevailing sentiment.
Human Rights Watch also found increased anxiety over the citizenship
rights of southerners living in Khartoum and elsewhere in northern
states. Southerners living throughout Sudan will be eligible to vote in
the referendum. The vast majority of them live in Southern Sudan, but an
estimated 1.5 million live in Khartoum and other northern towns, many
in settlements for displaced persons.
In recent months, officials in the northern ruling party have
publicly threatened that southerners may not be able to stay in the
north in the event of a secession vote. Both southerners in the north
and northerners living in Southern Sudan told Human Rights Watch that
they feared retaliation, even expulsion, if secession were approved.
International standards protect people from arbitrary or
discriminatory removal or deprivation of their nationality. The Sudanese
authorities should publicly pledge that no one will be at risk of
statelessness, or risk losing enjoyment of other basic rights, as a
result of the outcome of the referendum.
"The UN meeting provides a perfect opportunity for the parties to
declare there will be no expulsions of southerners from the north, or
northerners from the south," Peligal said.
Impasse at Abyei
Delegates at the UN meeting this week should also press the two parties
to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to make it an urgent priority to
resolve the political impasse over Abyei, the oil-rich area along the
north-south border where northern and southern forces clashed in 2008. The issue remains a key flashpoint for further conflict and human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
"The situation in Abyei could easily deteriorate and lead to more
conflict without a concerted effort to protect civilians and defuse
tensions on the ground," Peligal said.
Under the peace agreement, the area is to hold its own parallel
referendum in January 2011 to decide whether it will belong to the north
or south, but the parties have made no progress in agreeing on the
arrangements for this vote or in taking steps to resolve differences
between local populations and protect their rights, as Human Rights
Watch documented in August.
The United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), which has a mandate to
protect civilians, should increase its patrols throughout Abyei and
other key volatile areas along the north-south border, and Sudanese
authorities should ensure peacekeepers' access to these areas, Human
Rights Watch said.
Abuses by Soldiers in Southern Sudan
The Sudanese government and international supporters should not ignore
human rights violations by security forces in Southern Sudan, where
election-related grievances have provoked human rights violations by the
southern government's soldiers in the months following the April vote,
Human Rights Watch said.
In northern Jonglei and Upper Nile states, for example, Human Rights
Watch documented killings and rapes committed by these soldiers in June
and July. The soldiers targeted civilians whom they accused of
supporting "renegade" commanders and local militia groups who opposed
the southern ruling party.
In Upper Nile state, the governing party's troops conducted
particularly violent operations against a militia group allegedly linked
to SPLM-DC, a breakaway political party led by Lam Akol. In one
village, a 60-year-old woman told Human Rights Watch that soldiers had
rounded up her son and three friends, tied their hands behind their
backs, and shot them dead.
"These incidents underscore the urgent need for the southern
government to instruct soldiers on their human rights obligations and to
hold them accountable for all violations," Peligal said.
Human Rights Watch also urged human rights personnel for the UN
mission to monitor and report on these abuses and to press the southern
armed force to strengthen its accountability mechanisms before the
referendum. International donors engaged in reforming the security
sector in Southern Sudan should include accountability and human rights
in their programs.
The Government of Southern Sudan has, appropriately, put the southern
police forces in charge of referendum security, rather than soldiers
who have been responsible for abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
Protect Civilians and Insist on Justice for Crimes in Darfur
Human Rights Watch also urged the international delegates to ensure
stronger protection of civilians from ongoing violence and rights abuses
in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates should insist that those wanted by the International
Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide allegedly committed in Darfur appear in The Hague to face the
charges against them. President Omar al-Bashir; Ahmed Haroun, the
country's former minister for humanitarian affairs and current governor
of Southern Kordofan state; and Ali Kosheib, a "Janjaweed" militia
leader whose real name is Ali Mohammed Ali, are all subject to arrest
warrants by the ICC.
The situation in Darfur has deteriorated in recent months, and the Sudanese government continues to carry out armed attacks on rebel factions and civilians.
In early September, for example, armed militias (some wearing
military uniforms) on camels and horses and in vehicles mounted with
guns killed 37 people in an attack on a market in North Darfur. The
UN-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID), which is
charged with protecting civilians and has a base 15 kilometers away at
Tawila, turned back in its first effort to reach the site on the advice
of a pro-government armed group and did not reach the market until
nearly a week after the attack.
The incident underscores the need for the peacekeeping operations to
interpret its protection mandate robustly and to insist on immediate
access to areas where violations occur, Human Rights Watch said.
Violence has also increased inside camps for people who have been
displaced by the conflict. At Kalma camp in South Darfur and at Hamadiya
camp in West Darfur, tensions in July between supporters and opponents
of peace talks, known as the Doha peace process, led to violence,
killing 11 people.
The impact of the fighting between armed groups in Darfur and of
government attacks on civilians has not been fully documented, in part
because the government and rebels have repeatedly denied peacekeepers
and humanitarian aid groups access to affected areas. Following violence
in Kalma camp, for example, the Sudanese government blocked
humanitarian organizations from the camp for several weeks.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly urged leaders of the peacekeeping
operation to increase human rights monitoring and public reporting and,
where necessary, issue statements pressing Sudanese authorities to end
specific abuses.
In September, the Sudanese government endorsed a new security and
development strategy for Darfur, which the peacekeepers have publicly
supported. The plan envisions the return of displaced people to their
homes, but it does not contain clear measures to ensure their returns
are voluntary, or that militias are disarmed and soldiers held
accountable, Human Rights Watch said.
"Darfur cannot be developed unless there is real security," Peligal
said. "The international actors need to press the Sudanese government to
immediately end attacks on civilians, let humanitarian groups and
peacekeepers operate effectively, and send people home only when they
want. The government also needs to bring to justice those who have
committed abuses in Darfur, including by cooperating with the
International Criminal Court."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Like any country, Cuba has the right to defend itself against external aggression," said the Cuban embassy. "It is called self-defense, and it is protected by International Law and the UN Charter."
Cuban officials said the Trump administration is making "increasingly implausible accusations" against the country as it pushes to justify, "without any excuse, a military attack against Cuba," after an unnamed White House official told the news outlet Axios that the Cubans have been "discussing plans" to launch drones against the US.
"Cuba is the country under attack," said the Cuban embassy in a statement, months into a ramped-up oil blockade by the US that has left the island's electric grid in a "critical state" and forced frequent rolling blackouts as well as causing a healthcare crisis, with tens of thousands of people waiting for surgeries.
But in Axios' article, the Trump administration official took pains to push the notion that the US, with its nearly $1 trillion-per-year military, could face attacks from the tiny Caribbean nation 90 miles south of Florida because officials there have been preparing defensive capabilities.
Axios reported that, according to classified intelligence it viewed, Cuba has acquired more than 300 drones and has been considering plans to attack the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, various US military vessels, and Key West, Florida.
The country has been acquiring drones from Russia and Iran since 2023 and has sought more aid from Russia in recent months, according to the report. Intelligence intercepts have also shown Cuba is "trying to learn about how Iran has resisted us," the official said, referring to Iran's use of unmanned aircraft, its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and its attacks on US military outposts in the Middle East in response to the US-Israel war on the country that began in February.
The Cuban embassy further responded with a reminder that "like any country, Cuba has the right to defend itself against external aggression."
"Those from the US who seek the submission and, in fact, the destruction of the Cuban nation through military aggression and war, do not waste a single moment fabricating pretexts, creating and spreading falsehoods, and distorting as extraordinary the logical preparation required to face a potential aggression," said the embassy.
Journalist José Luis Granados Ceja, who is based in Mexico City and covers Latin America for Drop Site News, emphasized that "Cuba has the right to self-defense."
"It would be arguably be wise for Cuba to incorporate a tool that has proven to be an extraordinary effective weapon and a powerful tool of dissuasion as part of its self-defense strategy," said Granados Ceja.
Axios said the classified intelligence "could become a pretext for US military action" that President Donald Trump has expressed an interest in taking numerous times, before acknowledging toward the end of the article that "US officials don't believe Cuba is an imminent threat, or actively planning to attack American interests."
Rather, the intelligence showed that Cuban officials "have been discussing drone warfare plans in case hostilities erupt as relations with the US continue to deteriorate"—suggesting they could use drones in self-defense if attacked by the US.
The reporting carried echoes of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's rationale for attacking Iran in February. He stunned legal experts days after the war began by explaining that the US had decided to wage war on the Middle Eastern country because it feared Iran would retaliate after Israel began attacking it.
"The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us," Rubio said.
The claim that Cuba's reported preparations make the island a threat to US security "is a lie—with purpose," said David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International.
"Marco Rubio and his stenographers at Axios are manufacturing consent for the invasion of Cuba," said Adler. "To fall for this flimsy propaganda is to fail the most basic test of civic literacy. And the stakes are millions of Cuban lives off our coast."
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has long sought regime change in the socialist country.
Axios' reporting came days after CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Cuba to pressure officials into complying with US demands, likely including political and economic reforms, heightening fears that the US could be planning a military attack unless the country complies.
White House officials also told CBS News Friday that the Department of Justice is preparing to criminally indict former Cuban President Raúl Castro for shooting down planes that belonged to a US group that had flown into Cuba's airspace in the 1990s. In January, US forces invaded Venezuela and abducted President Nicolás Maduro, bringing him to the US where he was charged with drug trafficking, and pleaded not guilty.
Former Obama administration staffer and Pod Save America co-host Tommy Vietor said Sunday that "lots of signals pointing towards an imminent US regime change operation against Cuba."
"The latest," he said of the Axios article, "is this blatant effort to launder a pretext for war through the media."
"Before the second Trump administration, USAID would have been on the ground," said one public health expert.
The World Health Organization's official designation of an Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda as a public health emergency of international concern on Sunday came just a day after the world learned that the disease was spreading at all—a highly unusual chain of events, public health experts said, and one that suggested the virus has been circulating for weeks without the outbreak being detected.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Sunday that eight laboratory-confirmed cases, 246 suspected cases, and 80 suspected deaths had been reported in at least three health zones across Ituri Province in the DRC. In Kampala, the densely populated capital of neighboring Uganda, two lab-confirmed cases and one death were reported within 24 hours of each other.
The victims in Kampala had no apparent link to one another; both had recently traveled from Congo.
The confirmed cases in Congo include some that have been reported in Kinshasa, the capital. The fact that the disease has been able to spread to two large cities with international airports, and the "clusters of deaths across the province of Ituri" point to "a potentially much larger outbreak than what is currently being detected and reported, with significant local and regional risk of spread," said WHO.
"At least four deaths among healthcare workers in a clinical context suggestive of viral haemorrhagic fever have been reported from the affected area, raising concerns regarding healthcare-associated transmission, gaps in infection prevention and control measures, and the potential for amplification within health facilities," the agency said.
Dr. Ashish Jha, who served as the White House Covid-19 response coordinator, said the numbers being reported could make the outbreak "one of the 10 biggest Ebola outbreaks in history."
"We're just hearing about this now? That makes no sense. Those numbers take weeks to accumulate," said Jha, adding that the fact that suspected cases have been detected in capital cities as well as Bunia, the provincial capital of Ituri, "matters enormously for spread."
Tedros emphasized that the outbreak is considered "extraordinary" because there is no approved vaccine or therapeutics for Ebola caused by the Bundibugyo virus, as this strain is. WHO sent a team to investigate in Ituri after first being notified of suspected Ebola cases on May 5, but initial samples tested negative, as available field equipment was only able to detect the Zaire strain of the disease.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and global partners "need to surge resources in," Jha said. "A slow response creates unnecessary risks to people everywhere."
WHO, which President Donald Trump withdrew the US from last year, said the public health emergency designation was made to ramp up surveillance and infection prevention in the countries where the outbreak is occurring, enhance preparedness in bordering countries, and spread awareness in the international community.
The Ebola outbreak is the second to hit Uganda since Trump slashed foreign assistance funding, including by dismantling the US Agency for International Development. Earlier this month, CNN reported that the administration plans to divert $2 billion in global health program funding to cover the cost of closing USAID.
US foreign spending dropped by 56.9% after Trump shut down the agency as well as smaller aid programs and pushed Congress to rescind previously approved foreign assistance. USAID played a critical role in responding to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
In March 2025, when an Ebola outbreak was reported in Uganda, US officials warned that Trump's actions on foreign assistance at that point, including the termination of USAID grants, was impeding the Ugandan government's ability to procure lab supplies, diagnostic equipment, and protective gear for medical workers.
Dr. Herbert Luswata, president of the Uganda Medical Association, told The New York Times at the time that the country's ability to respond to Ebola was notably different than it had been during a previous outbreak in 2022, when dozens of medical workers volunteered to help treat patients.
The lack of funds and protective equipment had "left many afraid to help this time," the Times reported.
“With no USAID money and CDC expertise, it was like Uganda was left to die," Luswata told the Times.
Dr. Craig Spencer, an emergency medicine physician who survived Ebola in 2014, told CBS Saturday that "before the second Trump administration, USAID would have been on the ground" to respond to the current outbreak.
"The CDC would have been on the ground at a moment's notice, maybe even before a moment's notice, of a new outbreak of Ebola because we were in a bunch of countries," said Spencer. "We created relationships beforehand."
Last year, Trump megadonor Elon Musk, who was then leading efforts to slash government spending at the Department of Government Efficiency, said DOGE had "accidentally" canceled US support for Ebola prevention but claimed the funding had been "restored...and there was no interruption.”
But a number of Ebola-related contracts were in fact cut, accounting for $1.6 million out of $2.2 million that had previously gone toward the prevention efforts.
In recent weeks, public health experts have also warned that Trump's cuts to the CDC and other public health programs have left the US ill-prepared to respond to the hantavirus outbreak that originated on a cruise ship.
Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International and former leader on USAID's Covid-19 and disaster relief response work, said the current Ebola outbreak is "very worrying" and appeared to be the result of a "massive surveillance failure."
"It is really unusual for an Ebola outbreak to get to this scale before being detected; particularly in DRC, which has a lot of Ebola experience," said Konyndyk.
"I can't help but wonder," said Konyndyk, "if the drawdown of USAID and CDC health interventions by DOGE undermined some of the surveillance and detection initiatives that might have helped to catch this earlier."
WHO emphasized that the current crisis in DRC and Uganda requires "international coordination and cooperation to understand the extent of the outbreak, to coordinate surveillance, prevention, and response efforts, to scale up and strengthen operations and ensure ability to implement control measures."
"I get a chuckle out of the fact that a lot of folks in this political system who come from incredible amounts of privilege and wealth are the first ones to be like, 'Are you really working class?'"
In an extensive New York Times profile and interview published Friday and Saturday, the newspaper dug into what it called US Senate candidate Graham Platner's "complex class story" and asked how he can consider himself part of the "working class" considering his relatively privileged background.
The presumptive Democratic Maine candidate scoffed at the line of questioning as he pointed to the wide gap between his financial situation and that of people who have questioned his authenticity—as well as that of his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
"I get a chuckle out of the fact that a lot of folks in this political system who come from incredible amounts of privilege and wealth are the first ones to be like, 'Are you really working class? You’re just out there not making a lot of money and working on the ocean, but your dad was a small-town attorney,'" Platner told Lulu Garcia-Navarro, host of the Times' podcast The Interview. "Does that mean that you can’t actually represent working people?"
As the Times reported Friday, Platner is "the son of a Dartmouth College-educated lawyer, the grandson of a famed Connecticut architect, and a graduate of a private high school," with a mother who owns an "upscale restaurant." His family and his in-laws contributed financial help when Platner and his wife purchased their home and when they pursued in-vitro fertilization in Norway, having found the treatment unaffordable under the United States' for-profit healthcare system.
Platner, who is a first-time political candidate and a Marine combat veteran, owns an oyster farm, and according to his financial disclosure forms, the Times reported, "The bulk of his income appears to come from the nearly $60,000 in tax-free disability benefits he qualifies for each year after serving four combat tours."
The Times noted that both Republicans and Democrats who had supported Platner's primary opponent, Gov. Janet Mills, have attacked him over his background and suggested he is wealthier than he lets on.
One Mills supporter, former Maine Democratic Party chair and corporate lobbyist Tony Buxton, was quoted as saying, “This is not a salt-of-the-earth guy coming up from a hardscrabble existence." Buxton is with the firm Preti Flaherty, which represents a company that aims to build a data center in Maine; Platner supports a nationwide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers.
Contrary to Buxton's remarks, according to financial disclosures, Platner would be the fifth-least wealthy US senator should he be elected in November. His and his wife's combined net worth is below $100,000.
Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, wondered whether the Times would ever send "three reporters to report on the kind of life Susan Collins has lived versus Graham Platner the last 20 years."
"Tally the private planes, very nice restaurants, millions in wealth accumulation, and stack them next to each other and compare," he suggested. "That would be balanced."
According to Collins' financial disclosures, the five-term Republican senator's current net worth is $9.6 million, with up to $1.8 million directly in the bank last year. More than $342,000 of her wealth comes from interest and dividends from one of the best-performing stock portfolios in the Senate—a portfolio that is in her husband's name, a spokesperson told the Times.
Collins has opposed a ban on stock trading for members of Congress and their spouses.
The senator's financial disclosures also show that the $4.8 million she holds in corporate stocks include Amazon, United Health, and Visa—a company that would directly benefit from Collins' vote this past week against protecting consumers from overdraft fees.
“You could make $25 million a year in this country, you’re way closer to any of the billionaires."
While the National Republican Senatorial Committee's (NRSC) recently asserted that Platner is an "out-of-touch rich kid," the Democrat's campaign told the Times that his Republican opponent is "ultra wealthy."
"I don't think you could come up with a better avatar for the long-serving, self-enriching establishment politician than Susan Collins, who raises an immense amount of money outside of the state of Maine," he told Garcia-Navarro. "She takes an immense amount of money from [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]. She takes an immense amount of money from special interest groups and fossil fuel companies, and she has a very high-performing stock portfolio. I think a lot of people look at that in Maine and say, 'I don't think that that is actually the politics I want representing me."
Despite the NRSC's attack on Platner as a "rich kid," polls and data suggest that many of the 41-year-old candidate's peers can relate to his personal financial background, with millennials reporting in numerous surveys that their lives are more financially precarious than their parents' were at their age, due to rising costs and debt.
“It’s a lot harder for young people today to save up for markers of the American Dream than it was for previous generations,” Joanne Hsu, director of the University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers, told CNBC last year.
According to the Times and his detractors in the political establishment, wrote Maine-based writer Andy O'Brien, "Graham is this privileged rich kid, but he needs help paying for healthcare and housing. How is that not relatable?"
"I’ve been to a number of Platner’s town halls and one of the most common themes are older Mainers talking about the lack of economic opportunities for their adult children and grandchildren," O'Brien wrote. "Many of these young people are still living at home, even though they have jobs, because they can’t afford to rent or buy a home in Maine. Many of them struggle without affordable healthcare and childcare to allow them to work. At a recent town hall in Appleton, a local teacher told Platner that she had been teaching for 30 years in the area and still had $100,000 in student loan debt that kept compounding interest."
The Times reporters appeared taken aback by Platner's definition of "working class," one that the newspaper called "an expansive interpretation."
“My definition of working class these days is essentially anybody who makes money from wages,” he told the Times. “If you work for a living and you go out and put in hours and you pay taxes just like everyone else, I think that’s quite fair.”
He alluded to his exchange with the reporters in a conversation with The Lever's David Sirota before the articles came out.
While his grandfather was a successful architect, he suggested, the family's financial prosperity hasn't been carried down through subsequent generations.
"My mom is still working because she has no money," he said. "And we're trying to figure out, quite frankly, if she can't sell her restaurant, she's got no retirement. My wife and I, we're not broke, but there's no money at the end of the month."
"You could make $25 million a year in this country, you are way closer to somebody living in poverty than any of the billionaires," he told Sirota. "And these New York Times reporters were like, 'Well, that's a really expansive vision of 'working class.' I'm like, 'You know what else is expansive? Wealth inequality.' Because all of us don't own anything, and a couple people own damn near everything."
Asked whether he’s “really working class,” @grahamformaine had a blunt response:
“Well they’re fucking not.”
In a new Lever Time interview, Platner argues America’s class divide isn’t about who has the perfect résumé — it’s about who works for a living, and who lives off… pic.twitter.com/L2hgrIW6Qy
— The Lever (@LeverNews) May 13, 2026
To Garcia-Navarro, he said: "You are working class if you make your money from work and wages. The world of wealth disparity has become so intense that there are just so many people now who are sitting on so much money who do not work. They make money off their investments. They make money off their wealth."
"I know it’s an expansive definition of 'working class,'" he added, "but I think you need to have an expansive definition when we have the most expansive margin of wealth inequality in the history of the country."