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.
A ‘help wanted’ sign is displayed in a window of a store in Manhattan on December 02, 2022 in New York City.
The debate over the Federal Reserve’s proper course of action for the rest of 2023 was getting a little stagnant in recent months. The argument centered on whether inflation’s persistence was really a sign of an overheated economy that still needed cooling or if it was due to stubbornly large—but dampening—ripples stemming from the huge pandemic and war shocks of previous years. The recent failures of Silicon Valley and Signature banks and chaos in other corners of the banking sector definitely provide a new twist to this debate.
My view on what the Fed should do now in the wake of banking failures is relatively straight-forward:
The January consumer price index (CPI) data came in uncomfortably hot after months of good readings. The February CPI data showed a largely sideways movement in inflation. Worse, revisions to 2022 CPI data showed more disinflation in mid-2022 and less in late 2022—providing slightly weaker evidence of consistent disinflation over the course of the year.
However, nominal wage growth—what many have called a “supercore” measure of inflation—has consistently cooled over the course of 2022 and early 2023. Occasionally a single month of data has shown an uptick of wage growth and concerns are raised, but new data then show continued cooling. Figure A below shows annualized rates of wage growth for the latest three months relative to the prior three months. It shows these rates of wage growth for the initial releases of this data from December 2022 to March 2023. While wage growth blipped up in the December 2022 and February 2023 reports, the most recent report shows a clear pattern of consistent nominal wage deceleration.
This deceleration of nominal wage growth should be near-dispositive for arguments about the proper path of interest rates. If the Fed is insistent on 2% price inflation in the long run, this implies that nominal wages can grow at this 2% inflation rate plus the rate of productivity growth, which we will take as 1.5%. This 3.5% wage growth target, however, assumes no increase in the share of total income accruing to labor rather than capital. Given the large decline in labor’s share of income so far in the pandemic-driven business cycle, this means that several years of wage growth as high as 4.5% could be sustained while still seeing price inflation at the Fed’s 2% target. Nominal wage growth (as shown in Figure A) has been running at or below 4.5% for several months now. In short, wage growth is now running where it should be given the state of the business cycle and the Fed’s 2% inflation target—meaning the Fed should stand pat on any further interest rate hikes.
Besides the fact that current wage growth is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target on the cost side, the rapid normalization of nominal wage growth should also lead to rapid normalization of nominal aggregate demand. Essentially, if overheated demand is not being buoyed by above-target wage growth, it is hard to see how it could continue. The allegedly excess fiscal boost from the American Rescue Plan (and even the “excess savings” banked from this aid) is long gone. Financial and housing markets have lost significant value in recent months. Without excess wage growth, any excess of demand growth is unlikely to be sustained.
The failures of SVB and Signature banks and the associated increased stress in the banking sector are far more likely to reduce economy-wide demand in coming months than to increase it. As lending standards tighten and risk premiums rise for private lending, both consumer spending and business investment are likely to be curtailed. In short, whatever your estimate of the path of demand over the next year before SVB’s failure, your estimate now should be significantly lower. This has been recently acknowledged explicitly by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Eric Rosengren, who noted: “Financial crises create demand destruction. Banks reduce credit availability, consumers hold off large purchases, businesses defer spending. Interest rates should pause until the degree of demand destruction can be evaluated.”
There has been a recent debate in macroeconomic circles about the lags of monetary policy. Traditionally, these lags were thought to be “long and variable.” This would mean that a large part of the contractionary effect of the interest rate increases undertaken in 2022 and earlier this year had yet to hit the economy and would slow growth going forward even if the Fed stopped raising rates today. A newly fashionable view argues that these lags are shorter in today’s economy, meaning that the full contractionary effect of recent rate increases had already been absorbed by the economy and that a pause in rate-hiking would implicitly provide a substantial spur to demand growth. Whatever the outcome of this debate in normal times, the SVB failures clearly show that fallout from past rate increases is ongoing.
If one was worried that macroeconomic overheating remained a problem in the U.S. economy and was a key driver of inflation, the pressure to stop raising rates imposed by recent banking stress is extremely troubling. From this point of view, the recent banking stresses are demanding the Federal Reserve sacrifice efforts to cool the economy to control inflation in favor of the needs of financial stability.
It is especially perverse that increasing interest rates has appeared to throw much of the banking system into chaos. It is extremely well-documented that bank profitability is higher when interest rates are higher. However, it seems that banks cannot even make the transition to a new interest rate regime that would be highly favorable for them without substantial turmoil.
For all these reasons, if one was an inflation hawk who thought interest rates needed to be raised further, the imperative to stop raising rates now based on stresses in the banking system is an extremely dangerous development. And, in fact, even if one did not think that rates needed to be raised further in order to contain inflation, it’s still a bad thing that our financial system has become so fragile that raising rates causes these kinds of tremors. Even if I don’t think the economy needs higher interest rates today, there may be a future where higher interest rates would benefit the economy—and it would be very bad if macroeconomic stabilization options were held hostage to a fragile financial system.
These considerations argue strongly for improved regulatory and supervisory actions moving forward. The rollback of Dodd-Frank regulations in 2018 was a terrible step backwards in this regard. Further, the Federal Reserve rolled back regulatory safeguards even further than the 2018 law made necessary. Today’s hawks (and those like me who want to preserve the option of raising interest rates at some point in the future) should be among the most strident proponents for tightening these regulatory standards back up, and for holding the Fed accountable for supervisory failures.
But for now, the banking system is fragile and recent rate hikes have put stress on the system (as maddening as all of this is). This fragility is likely to cool the economy in coming months. Given this, any reasonable estimate of where interest rates should have gone in 2023 made before the SVB collapse should be marked down since.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I’ve ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That’s why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we’ve ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here’s the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That’s not just some fundraising cliche. It’s the absolute and literal truth. We don’t accept corporate advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The debate over the Federal Reserve’s proper course of action for the rest of 2023 was getting a little stagnant in recent months. The argument centered on whether inflation’s persistence was really a sign of an overheated economy that still needed cooling or if it was due to stubbornly large—but dampening—ripples stemming from the huge pandemic and war shocks of previous years. The recent failures of Silicon Valley and Signature banks and chaos in other corners of the banking sector definitely provide a new twist to this debate.
My view on what the Fed should do now in the wake of banking failures is relatively straight-forward:
The January consumer price index (CPI) data came in uncomfortably hot after months of good readings. The February CPI data showed a largely sideways movement in inflation. Worse, revisions to 2022 CPI data showed more disinflation in mid-2022 and less in late 2022—providing slightly weaker evidence of consistent disinflation over the course of the year.
However, nominal wage growth—what many have called a “supercore” measure of inflation—has consistently cooled over the course of 2022 and early 2023. Occasionally a single month of data has shown an uptick of wage growth and concerns are raised, but new data then show continued cooling. Figure A below shows annualized rates of wage growth for the latest three months relative to the prior three months. It shows these rates of wage growth for the initial releases of this data from December 2022 to March 2023. While wage growth blipped up in the December 2022 and February 2023 reports, the most recent report shows a clear pattern of consistent nominal wage deceleration.
This deceleration of nominal wage growth should be near-dispositive for arguments about the proper path of interest rates. If the Fed is insistent on 2% price inflation in the long run, this implies that nominal wages can grow at this 2% inflation rate plus the rate of productivity growth, which we will take as 1.5%. This 3.5% wage growth target, however, assumes no increase in the share of total income accruing to labor rather than capital. Given the large decline in labor’s share of income so far in the pandemic-driven business cycle, this means that several years of wage growth as high as 4.5% could be sustained while still seeing price inflation at the Fed’s 2% target. Nominal wage growth (as shown in Figure A) has been running at or below 4.5% for several months now. In short, wage growth is now running where it should be given the state of the business cycle and the Fed’s 2% inflation target—meaning the Fed should stand pat on any further interest rate hikes.
Besides the fact that current wage growth is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target on the cost side, the rapid normalization of nominal wage growth should also lead to rapid normalization of nominal aggregate demand. Essentially, if overheated demand is not being buoyed by above-target wage growth, it is hard to see how it could continue. The allegedly excess fiscal boost from the American Rescue Plan (and even the “excess savings” banked from this aid) is long gone. Financial and housing markets have lost significant value in recent months. Without excess wage growth, any excess of demand growth is unlikely to be sustained.
The failures of SVB and Signature banks and the associated increased stress in the banking sector are far more likely to reduce economy-wide demand in coming months than to increase it. As lending standards tighten and risk premiums rise for private lending, both consumer spending and business investment are likely to be curtailed. In short, whatever your estimate of the path of demand over the next year before SVB’s failure, your estimate now should be significantly lower. This has been recently acknowledged explicitly by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Eric Rosengren, who noted: “Financial crises create demand destruction. Banks reduce credit availability, consumers hold off large purchases, businesses defer spending. Interest rates should pause until the degree of demand destruction can be evaluated.”
There has been a recent debate in macroeconomic circles about the lags of monetary policy. Traditionally, these lags were thought to be “long and variable.” This would mean that a large part of the contractionary effect of the interest rate increases undertaken in 2022 and earlier this year had yet to hit the economy and would slow growth going forward even if the Fed stopped raising rates today. A newly fashionable view argues that these lags are shorter in today’s economy, meaning that the full contractionary effect of recent rate increases had already been absorbed by the economy and that a pause in rate-hiking would implicitly provide a substantial spur to demand growth. Whatever the outcome of this debate in normal times, the SVB failures clearly show that fallout from past rate increases is ongoing.
If one was worried that macroeconomic overheating remained a problem in the U.S. economy and was a key driver of inflation, the pressure to stop raising rates imposed by recent banking stress is extremely troubling. From this point of view, the recent banking stresses are demanding the Federal Reserve sacrifice efforts to cool the economy to control inflation in favor of the needs of financial stability.
It is especially perverse that increasing interest rates has appeared to throw much of the banking system into chaos. It is extremely well-documented that bank profitability is higher when interest rates are higher. However, it seems that banks cannot even make the transition to a new interest rate regime that would be highly favorable for them without substantial turmoil.
For all these reasons, if one was an inflation hawk who thought interest rates needed to be raised further, the imperative to stop raising rates now based on stresses in the banking system is an extremely dangerous development. And, in fact, even if one did not think that rates needed to be raised further in order to contain inflation, it’s still a bad thing that our financial system has become so fragile that raising rates causes these kinds of tremors. Even if I don’t think the economy needs higher interest rates today, there may be a future where higher interest rates would benefit the economy—and it would be very bad if macroeconomic stabilization options were held hostage to a fragile financial system.
These considerations argue strongly for improved regulatory and supervisory actions moving forward. The rollback of Dodd-Frank regulations in 2018 was a terrible step backwards in this regard. Further, the Federal Reserve rolled back regulatory safeguards even further than the 2018 law made necessary. Today’s hawks (and those like me who want to preserve the option of raising interest rates at some point in the future) should be among the most strident proponents for tightening these regulatory standards back up, and for holding the Fed accountable for supervisory failures.
But for now, the banking system is fragile and recent rate hikes have put stress on the system (as maddening as all of this is). This fragility is likely to cool the economy in coming months. Given this, any reasonable estimate of where interest rates should have gone in 2023 made before the SVB collapse should be marked down since.
The debate over the Federal Reserve’s proper course of action for the rest of 2023 was getting a little stagnant in recent months. The argument centered on whether inflation’s persistence was really a sign of an overheated economy that still needed cooling or if it was due to stubbornly large—but dampening—ripples stemming from the huge pandemic and war shocks of previous years. The recent failures of Silicon Valley and Signature banks and chaos in other corners of the banking sector definitely provide a new twist to this debate.
My view on what the Fed should do now in the wake of banking failures is relatively straight-forward:
The January consumer price index (CPI) data came in uncomfortably hot after months of good readings. The February CPI data showed a largely sideways movement in inflation. Worse, revisions to 2022 CPI data showed more disinflation in mid-2022 and less in late 2022—providing slightly weaker evidence of consistent disinflation over the course of the year.
However, nominal wage growth—what many have called a “supercore” measure of inflation—has consistently cooled over the course of 2022 and early 2023. Occasionally a single month of data has shown an uptick of wage growth and concerns are raised, but new data then show continued cooling. Figure A below shows annualized rates of wage growth for the latest three months relative to the prior three months. It shows these rates of wage growth for the initial releases of this data from December 2022 to March 2023. While wage growth blipped up in the December 2022 and February 2023 reports, the most recent report shows a clear pattern of consistent nominal wage deceleration.
This deceleration of nominal wage growth should be near-dispositive for arguments about the proper path of interest rates. If the Fed is insistent on 2% price inflation in the long run, this implies that nominal wages can grow at this 2% inflation rate plus the rate of productivity growth, which we will take as 1.5%. This 3.5% wage growth target, however, assumes no increase in the share of total income accruing to labor rather than capital. Given the large decline in labor’s share of income so far in the pandemic-driven business cycle, this means that several years of wage growth as high as 4.5% could be sustained while still seeing price inflation at the Fed’s 2% target. Nominal wage growth (as shown in Figure A) has been running at or below 4.5% for several months now. In short, wage growth is now running where it should be given the state of the business cycle and the Fed’s 2% inflation target—meaning the Fed should stand pat on any further interest rate hikes.
Besides the fact that current wage growth is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target on the cost side, the rapid normalization of nominal wage growth should also lead to rapid normalization of nominal aggregate demand. Essentially, if overheated demand is not being buoyed by above-target wage growth, it is hard to see how it could continue. The allegedly excess fiscal boost from the American Rescue Plan (and even the “excess savings” banked from this aid) is long gone. Financial and housing markets have lost significant value in recent months. Without excess wage growth, any excess of demand growth is unlikely to be sustained.
The failures of SVB and Signature banks and the associated increased stress in the banking sector are far more likely to reduce economy-wide demand in coming months than to increase it. As lending standards tighten and risk premiums rise for private lending, both consumer spending and business investment are likely to be curtailed. In short, whatever your estimate of the path of demand over the next year before SVB’s failure, your estimate now should be significantly lower. This has been recently acknowledged explicitly by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Eric Rosengren, who noted: “Financial crises create demand destruction. Banks reduce credit availability, consumers hold off large purchases, businesses defer spending. Interest rates should pause until the degree of demand destruction can be evaluated.”
There has been a recent debate in macroeconomic circles about the lags of monetary policy. Traditionally, these lags were thought to be “long and variable.” This would mean that a large part of the contractionary effect of the interest rate increases undertaken in 2022 and earlier this year had yet to hit the economy and would slow growth going forward even if the Fed stopped raising rates today. A newly fashionable view argues that these lags are shorter in today’s economy, meaning that the full contractionary effect of recent rate increases had already been absorbed by the economy and that a pause in rate-hiking would implicitly provide a substantial spur to demand growth. Whatever the outcome of this debate in normal times, the SVB failures clearly show that fallout from past rate increases is ongoing.
If one was worried that macroeconomic overheating remained a problem in the U.S. economy and was a key driver of inflation, the pressure to stop raising rates imposed by recent banking stress is extremely troubling. From this point of view, the recent banking stresses are demanding the Federal Reserve sacrifice efforts to cool the economy to control inflation in favor of the needs of financial stability.
It is especially perverse that increasing interest rates has appeared to throw much of the banking system into chaos. It is extremely well-documented that bank profitability is higher when interest rates are higher. However, it seems that banks cannot even make the transition to a new interest rate regime that would be highly favorable for them without substantial turmoil.
For all these reasons, if one was an inflation hawk who thought interest rates needed to be raised further, the imperative to stop raising rates now based on stresses in the banking system is an extremely dangerous development. And, in fact, even if one did not think that rates needed to be raised further in order to contain inflation, it’s still a bad thing that our financial system has become so fragile that raising rates causes these kinds of tremors. Even if I don’t think the economy needs higher interest rates today, there may be a future where higher interest rates would benefit the economy—and it would be very bad if macroeconomic stabilization options were held hostage to a fragile financial system.
These considerations argue strongly for improved regulatory and supervisory actions moving forward. The rollback of Dodd-Frank regulations in 2018 was a terrible step backwards in this regard. Further, the Federal Reserve rolled back regulatory safeguards even further than the 2018 law made necessary. Today’s hawks (and those like me who want to preserve the option of raising interest rates at some point in the future) should be among the most strident proponents for tightening these regulatory standards back up, and for holding the Fed accountable for supervisory failures.
But for now, the banking system is fragile and recent rate hikes have put stress on the system (as maddening as all of this is). This fragility is likely to cool the economy in coming months. Given this, any reasonable estimate of where interest rates should have gone in 2023 made before the SVB collapse should be marked down since.
The ACLU is asking a federal district court in Georgia to order the immediate release of Mario Guevara, a journalist arrested while covering a June "No Kings" protest, after the Board of Immigration Appeals on Friday ordered his return to El Salvador.
The Emmy-winning Spanish-language journalist has reported on immigrant issues in the Atlanta area for two decades. When he was arrested on the job this year, he had a work permit and a path to a green card through his US citizen son. The charges from June have been dropped, but he remains at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) center in Folkston.
ICE refused to comply with a July 1 decision that Guevara could be released on bond. The Board of Immigration Appeals has now dismissed his bond appeal "as 'moot' because it has also granted the government's motion to reopen his removal proceedings," according to the ACLU—which secured an emergency federal district court hearing on Friday.
"Mr. Guevara should not even be in immigration detention, but the government has kept him there for months because of his crucial reporting on law enforcement activity," said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "The fact that he may now be put on a plane to El Salvador, a country he fled out of fear, at any moment, despite a clear path to becoming a permanent resident, is despicable. The court must ensure he is not deported and should order his release from detention immediately."
"The fact that he may now be put on a plane to El Salvador, a country he fled out of fear, at any moment, despite a clear path to becoming a permanent resident, is despicable."
In a letter published Friday by The Bitter Southerner, Guevara detailed his experience since his arrest and wrote: "I don't know why ICE wants to continue treating me like a criminal. It pains me to know that I have been denied every privilege and the right to be free when I have never committed any crime."
"This whole situation has me devastated, and not only morally, but also economically, because I am the breadwinner for the home," he explained. "Since my arrest, I have lost tens of thousands of dollars, and my company, the news channel MGNews, is on the verge of bankruptcy."
"But I have to remain strong and confident that the United States still has some caring and decency left and that in the end justice will prevail," he added. "Hopefully, soon all my tears and my family's tears will be wiped away, and we can have fun and smile, triumphant, as we did before, together and in absolute freedom."
Guevara's legal team and press freedom groups have emphasized that his case is bigger than a single reporter. As ACLU of Georgia legal director Cory Isaacson put it on Friday, "If Mr. Guevara is deported it will be a devastating outcome for a journalist whose initial detention was a gross violation of his rights."
"The immediate release of Mr. Guevara is the only way to correct this injustice that has immeasurably harmed his well-being and the well-being of his family, the community, and the people of Georgia," Isaacson added. "In a democracy, journalists should not be arrested for exercising their constitutional rights to report the news."
Mario Guevara is here legally and is not facing any criminal charges.He is being thrown out of the country for nothing but reporting news.
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) September 19, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Other free press advocates also responded with alarm to the Board of Immigration Appeals' Friday decision.
"We are outraged that journalist Mario Guevara was initially detained for almost 100 days because the government believes that livestreaming law enforcement poses a danger to their operations," Committee to Protect Journalists US, Canada, and Caribbean program coordinator Katherine Jacobsen said in a Friday statement.
"This latest move allows the government to circumvent addressing the reason why Guevara was detained, in retaliation for his journalism," Jacobsen continued. "Instead, authorities are using the very real threat of deportation to remove a reporter from the country simply for doing his job and covering the news."
Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America, similarly said that "if carried out, this ruling would mark a dangerous moment for press freedom, with the United States—long considered a beacon for free speech—moving to deport a journalist in direct retaliation for his reporting."
"This mirrors the tactics of authoritarian governments the US has long condemned and sends a chilling message to reporters everywhere, especially those covering vulnerable communities or government abuses of power," he added. "We urge the court to reconsider and to allow Mario Guevara to remain in the country and continue his reporting free from fear of deportation or retaliation."
US President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of mass deportations, and since returning to power in January, his administration has sought to deliver on that. On Friday, Free Press senior counsel Nora Benavidez warned, "Deportation without due process—that would be the new normal set by Mario Guevara's removal from the United States."
"Horrific and lawless, this is the environment the Trump administration created to promote a singular approved narrative, remove critical news coverage for communities, and chill journalists' freedom should they dare hold power to account," she said. "Mr. Guevara's case is happening live, with breaking updates occurring under a sealed case shrouded in secrecy, upon which his removal and ability to report depend."
Ahead of the developments on Friday, Benavidez had tied Guevara's case to the government's effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil over his protests against Israel's US-backed genocide in Gaza, and Disney yanking late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off the air after the Trump administration objected to his comments about the fatal shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"Mahmoud Khalil was just ordered to be deported for his free speech," she said Thursday. "Mario Guevara is in detention for filming police. Jimmy Kimmel taken off air for his speech. TikTok [is] being bought by Trump cronies. All of it moves towards one singular narrative Trump approves. We must resist."
Ahead of this month's United Nations General Assembly and November's UN Climate Change Conference in Brazil, climate and social justice defenders around the world are taking part in a global week of action culminating in weekend events "to draw the line against injustice, pollution, and violence—and for a future built on peace, clean energy, and fairness."
Hundreds of thousands of people in more than 100 countries are expected to take part in this weekend's demonstrations, which will mark the climax of the "Draw the Line" week of over 600 worldwide actions.
Actions are set to take place in cities including Berlin, Buenos Aires, Dhaka, Istanbul, Jakarta, Johannesburg, London, Manila, Melbourne, Mumbai, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, Paris, São Paulo, Suva, Tokyo, Wellington, and Belém—where the UN Climate Change Conference, also known as COP30, is scheduled to kick off on November 10.
"United under a call from Indigenous leaders of the Amazon and the Pacific, people across more than 90 countries are joining marches, rallies, strikes, and creative actions to demand an end to fossil fuels, a just transition, and real climate justice," Draw the Line said in a statement.
"The mobilizations highlight escalating climate impacts, rising food and energy costs, deadly floods and heatwaves, and growing insecurity driven by fossil fuels and conflict," the campaign added. "Protesters are also uplifting community-led solutions: renewable energy systems, debt cancellation, fair taxation, and land rights for Indigenous peoples and traditional communities."
From Indonesia and Turkey, to London and South Africa, activists and campaigners are raising the call to ✍️____ Draw the Line against injustice, pollution, and violence, and building the moment for the global weekend of actions starting tomorrow⚡#DrawTheLine
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) September 18, 2025 at 9:35 AM
According to the climate action group 350.org:
This global moment comes at a critical time when the rich and the powerful countries and corporations continue their colonial and extractivist agenda, while world leaders fail to prevent and stop the genocide taking place in Palestine, Sudan, and Congo, and the governments across the world are veering towards authoritarianism, undoing decades of progress. With every tenth of a degree of global heating, the consequences for people and ecosystems multiply, as seen in the devastating wildfires, typhoons, cloudbursts, floods, and extreme heatwaves already sweeping across continents this year.
“We are drawing the line against deceptive tactics led by rich nations and big corporations to perpetuate fossil fuel dominance and delay the equitable just transition to a fossil-free and healthy planet," explained Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development.
"We demand a complete coal phaseout in Asia by 2035 and a rapid and just energy transition out of fossil fuels and to 100% renewable energy before 2050," Nacpil added. "We demand the full delivery of climate finance obligations of the Global North to the Global South for urgent climate action including just transition. This is a crucial part of their reparations for historical and continuing harms to our people.”
The Draw the Line actions coincide with Disrupt Complicity Weekend of solidarity with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights and against Israel's genocide, forced famine, apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and settler colonization in Palestine.
Read the full statement: bdsmovement.net/news/disrupt...
[image or embed]
— BDS movement (@bdsmovement.bsky.social) August 28, 2025 at 4:38 AM
“In the current, most depraved, induced starvation phase of the US-Israeli livestreamed genocide against... Palestinians in the Gaza ghetto, Palestinian civil society stands united in calling on people of conscience and grassroots movements for racial, economic, social, climate, and gender justice worldwide to help us build a critical mass of people power to end state, corporate, and institutional complicity with Israel’s regime of settler-colonial apartheid and genocide, particularly through effective BDS actions and pressure," BDS movement co-founder Omar Barghouti said in a statement this week.
"We are not begging for charity but calling for true solidarity, and that begins with doing no harm to our liberation struggle, at the very least, as a profound moral and legal obligation," he added.
The Draw the Line actions come as the world is on track to overshoot the best-case 1.5°C warming target established under the landmark Paris climate agreement. Experts argue that staying below that limit significantly reduces the likelihood of catastrophic weather events, protects vulnerable ecosystems, lowers the risk of devastating food and water insecurity, and curbs climate-related economic harms.
Not only is the planet on track to exceed the 1.5°C target, a key United Nations climate report published last October warned that the world is on course for between 2.6-3.1°C of "catastrophic" heating over the next century, unless urgent action is taken to dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions by more than half within the next decade.
Trump-appointed Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano on Friday drew immediate fire from many progressives after he said raising the retirement age for American workers was on the table.
During an interview on Fox Business, host Maria Bartiromo asked Bisignano if he would "consider raising the retirement age" to shore up Social Security's finances.
"I think everything's being considered," he replied.
He said that he would need Congress' help to officially raise the retirement age and acknowledged, "That will take a while," before adding, "But we have plenty of time."
Bartiromo: Would you consider raising the retirement age?
Social Security Administration Commissioner Bisignano: I think everything will be considered pic.twitter.com/kqfMm5Prif
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 19, 2025
Advocacy organization Social Security Works immediately pounced on Bisignano's statement, which it noted contradicted statements made by President Donald Trump during the 2024 election campaign.
"That's a betrayal of Trump's campaign promise to protect Social Security," the organization said in a social media post. "Raising the retirement age by a year translates to a 7% Social Security benefit cut. Forcing us to work longer, for smaller checks, and a shorter retirement is unconscionable!"
In fact, as flagged by former Biden White House Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates, Trump said in 2024 that "I will not cut one penny from Social Security or Medicaid and I will not raise the retirement age by one day."
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich also rebuked Bisignano for floating a retirement age increase, and he proposed an alternative way to improve Social Security's fiscal health.
"A worker making $50,000 a year contributes to Social Security on 100% of their income," he wrote. "A CEO making $20 million a year contributes to Social Security on less than 1% of their income. Instead of raising the retirement age, we should scrap the Social Security tax cap."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) noted that Bisignano's call to potentially raise the retirement age came just months after Republicans passed massive tax cuts through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans.
"Republicans gave away trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy," he said. "Now they are asking Americans to work longer. We won’t stand for it."
The social media account for United Auto Workers delivered a pithy two-word response to Bisignano: "Hell no!"