SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
The Third Door: How Covert Regime Change Slips Past the War Powers Resolution
Congress can stop a war it can see. It cannot stop one its members are forbidden to describe—and that is now the door the pressure campaign against Cuba has walked through.
Aug 13, 2026
Last December, writing here about unrest in Iran, I had to be careful. We must resist the temptation to treat capability as conspiracy, I wrote, while also resisting the delusion that absence of evidence means absence of action. That caution was owed to readers, because I could point to a history and a capability but not to an operation.
That caution is no longer necessary. In the first week of August, American newspapers reported that the Central Intelligence Agency has established a dedicated Cuba task force—case officers, analysts, cyber operators, specialists in covert influence—whose reported mandate is to create fissures among the Cuban political elite, in the hope of pressuring the replacement of officials deemed anti-American with leaders more agreeable to the president's demands. Cuba has been elevated to "Priority 1" in the intelligence community's collection framework, alongside China, Iran, and Russia. Satellites are being re-tasked. The Agency declined to comment.
We are told there are limits: no organized Cuban partners, no authority for lethal operations. We are also told, in the same breath, that the president may modify those authorities at any time.
What is remarkable here is not the operation. Lindsey A. O'Rourke's Covert Regime Change documents 64 covert American attempts to change foreign governments between 1947 and 1989, against six overt ones—a ratio of 10 to one. Only 25 succeeded even by the undemanding measure that an American-backed client took power. Her most damning finding is the one least quoted: States targeted for regime change—especially those that survived the attempt—were more likely to experience civil war or mass killing in the years that followed.
Covert action undertaken to alter the composition or constitutional order of a foreign government should be forbidden.
What is remarkable is that nothing in American law stands in the way—and that the reason has nothing to do with secrecy.
A Statute That Ends Things, and a Statute That Only Reports Them
The War Powers Resolution is not, at bottom, a reporting statute. It is a termination statute. It gives the president 48 hours to report and 60 days to finish, after which he shall terminate the use of the forces concerned unless Congress affirmatively says otherwise. Congressional silence ends the operation. That default is the whole of its design.
Covert action runs under an entirely different law, 50 U.S.C. §3093. There must be a written presidential finding. The intelligence committees must be kept "fully and currently informed." These are real constraints, born of real scandals, and it would be wrong to say Congress is blind.
But §3093 contains no clock, no expiry, and no vote—ever. A finding, once signed and reported, may run indefinitely. Silence continues it. And where a war powers report enters a public record on which any member may act, a finding goes to two committees behind closed doors, sometimes to eight members alone. Those outside may not be told; those inside may not speak. The floor vote that the War Powers Resolution treats as the ordinary constitutional remedy becomes structurally impossible, because a legislature cannot vote on what its members are forbidden to describe.
Then there is the definitional gap, which is the loophole properly so called. The resolution regulates the introduction of "United States Armed Forces" into hostilities. Case officers are not Armed Forces. Identical objective, identical target, identical effect—but a different statute, depending on which badge the operator carries.
I have argued in these pages that economic warfare capable of collapsing a foreign economy should be subject to reporting and time limits comparable to those governing armed force. I still believe it. But I have to report that it would not close this gap. The War Powers Resolution regulates a category of actor. An economic amendment would regulate a category of instrument. Any scheme built on categories will leak, because the executive may always choose the category nobody regulates. Only a rule keyed to effects will hold.
Consent That No One Can Authenticate
In January I argued here that Washington's claims of Venezuelan "cooperation" were null and void, because consent extracted under coercion is not consent. Covert action takes that one step further, and it is worse.
Suppose the task force succeeds. Suppose that some month soon the Cuban leadership is reconstituted, or a concession is made, or an agreement signed on precisely the terms demanded. Who will be able to say who authored it?
Not Congress, which will have seen a finding but not its consequences. Not the United Nations, whose bedrock principle protects a state's freedom to choose its own political and economic system without external coercion. Not the Cuban people, in whose name it would be done. Not the American public, in whose name it was mounted. And not the negotiators themselves—the same agency whose director flew to Havana in May to meet Cuba's interior minister, its intelligence chief, and the intermediary through whom talks are said to run is the agency now tasked with fracturing the leadership those talks would bind.
A settlement whose authorship cannot be established is a settlement no one can rely on—including the party that obtained it. Covert influence aimed at the composition of a foreign government does not merely violate the norm against intervention. It destroys the evidence by which compliance with that norm could ever be judged.
The Trap in the Obvious Remedy
The obvious answer is to regulate: an effects-based trigger reaching any sustained effort to alter a foreign government's composition, whichever agency conducts it; a finding that expires by law unless renewed by recorded committee vote; a path by which a committee can reach the full Congress in closed session.
I proposed exactly that, and then thought better of the framing. A statute that regulates a practice licenses it. Write a clock for operations aimed at foreign governments and you have conceded that such operations are lawfully available—and that concession reaches backward across O'Rourke's 64, converting a record of illegality into the quaint era before the paperwork. This is, not coincidentally, what intelligence services themselves have long wanted: Statutory footing transfers the risk from the officer to the statute. The vocabulary follows on its own. Subversion becomes stabilization. Regime change becomes democratic transition assistance. Fracturing an elite becomes engagement with reform-minded elements.
So the operative provision must be prohibition, not licensing. Covert action undertaken to alter the composition or constitutional order of a foreign government should be forbidden. The trigger, the clock, and the escalation path are then not the scheme but its enforcement—and the governing rule for the intelligence work that legitimately remains: collection, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counterproliferation.
What Is at Stake in Havana
None of this is abstract in Cuba right now. On August 2 the national grid collapsed for the sixth time this year. On August 3 the restoration itself failed, and it collapsed again. The country's own energy minister said plainly that Cuba has no fuel and expects none in the volumes it needs, and that containers of solar panels, food, and medicines sit held at nearby ports—some destined for children whose medical condition depends on electricity. On August 6, United Nations experts said the humanitarian consequences are unfolding into a full-blown crisis, called the measures incompatible with Article 2 of the Charter, and urged the Security Council and General Assembly to take the matter up as one of international peace and security.
Into that, we have now introduced an effort to fracture a political elite. Whatever one thinks of the Cuban government—and one may think a great deal—an operation of that kind, in a country in that condition, is not an operation with a narrow band of outcomes. It sits adjacent to the conditions in which atrocity becomes possible.
Congress can stop a war it can see. Six months ago I asked in these pages whose job it is when Congress can no longer stop an unauthorized war. The answer keeps narrowing, and the doors keep multiplying. Two have been narrowed. A third stands open, and we have just been told, in the newspaper, that someone has walked through it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Brother Is Watching You... Through a Flock Camera
Millions of Americans are being watched as the US ramps up mass surveillance with help from AI, data brokers, and partnerships with private tech companies.
Aug 13, 2026
Government surveillance isn’t new, but new wide-ranging technologies that can detect our faces and track our movements are making it more ubiquitous. While the tools have changed, the purpose remains the same: to chill independent thought, free speech, and dissent, bringing our country closer to 1984.
Millions of Americans are being watched as the US ramps up mass surveillance with help from AI, data brokers, and partnerships with private tech companies. Immigrants, people seeking reproductive healthcare, and activists are among the most intensely monitored, but tech like Flock cameras has brought the issue into communities across the country.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, police departments have increasingly deployed automated license plate readers (ALPRs) powered by AI to track drivers “without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.” And they’re doing this with little to no oversight or regulation.
Flock Safety is one of the largest ALPR vendors in the US. Their solar-powered, teardrop-shaped cameras capture images of all passing vehicles, storing the car’s make, model, and other identifying features. Any law enforcement agency with a Flock contract can access the company’s nationwide database without a warrant.
As more communities wake up to the danger, the solution isn’t trading one brand of camera for another.
Flock cameras also track people. Their “FreeForm search” feature has allowed police departments to search the database using phrases like “male with tattoos” and “person on skateboard,” according to data reviewed by 404 Media.
DeFlock, an open-source project that maps license plate readers, has identified over 128,000 ALPRs in the US. Even my small town of around 20,000 people in Southern California has at least 35 ALPRs, most of them Flock cameras.
No independent research has shown that ALPRs can reduce crime. But there’s mounting evidence of the technology’s alarmingly high error rate. An analysis by the Roseville, California police department found that 71% of Flock’s alerts to the Roseville police incorrectly flagged vehicles as stolen or used in a felony.
Far from promoting “public safety,” the tech has led to wrongful arrests, profiling, and countless other abuses.
Flock reportedly has shared license plate data with federal authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Among other cities, Los Angeles recently suspended their use of Flock cameras amid mounting privacy concerns over who controls the data and how it’s shared.
Court records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation show that Texas deputies searched 83,000 Flock cameras nationwide to track a Texas woman across state lines because she allegedly “had an abortion.” In Dunwoody, Georgia, a public records request revealed Flock employees accessing cameras in children’s spaces at a community center as part of sales demonstrations.
Other reporting has found cops repeatedly misusing the Flock system to stalk exes.
More communities are organizing and fighting back against this unregulated AI technology. As a result, at least 100 cities have now rejected ALPRs, most of them Flock cameras. But Flock is only one cog in the machine. Cities can easily replace their Flock cameras with those from competitors like Axon, Motorola Solutions, or Genetec, as some have already done.
Mass surveillance remains the fundamental problem. Ever more companies collect our data through cellular networks, facial recognition, surveillance cameras, and ALPRs, among other sources.
The US government, in turn, purchases massive amounts of our data from commercial data brokers without obtaining warrants—bypassing our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In tandem, multiple federal agencies now have sweeping access to Americans’ sensitive personal data through systems built by Big Tech company Palantir, following President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order that expanded data sharing across agencies.
This metastasizing mass surveillance state—what George Orwell called “Big Brother” in 1984—is eroding our privacy, freedom, and Constitution.
As more communities wake up to the danger, the solution isn’t trading one brand of camera for another. We need oversight and regulation of the entire surveillance industry, as well as the government agencies that rely on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Aging Under the Planet-Destroyer in-Chief
Honestly, once upon a time, no one could have made all this up: the greatest power on Earth in the midst of the most stunningly dangerous “war” of all time, our war on the planet itself.
Aug 13, 2026
Talk about unjust, unfair, or just plain not right: Here I am at 82 years old with children, grandchildren, and old (and I mean old!) friends, and (like me) our country and our world seem to be all too distinctly on the downhill slope. I could, of course, have added aided by my president, Donald J. Trump, and (except for the “my”) that would be anything but inaccurate. And yet, the very fact that a near majority of Americans (46.4% in 2016 and 49.8% in 2024) elected him president of the United States should tell you that the process was already well underway; otherwise, such a... you chose the word... parody or atrocity (or both) of American politics would never have been possible.
In short, after all these years—16 as an editor at Pantheon Books, a decade in a freelance editing (and writing) life, and almost a quarter of a century running and writing for TomDispatch.com, the website I created (and that’s now being run by the wonderful Nick Turse)—somehow, I still can’t believe (not truly) the world I find myself in. Phew! That was an exhausting sentence! (And no surprise there, since we’re on a distinctly exhausting planet.)
If there were a god (which, unfortunately, I doubt there is), he (she, it, they?) would surely be no less unable to believe the world we now find ourselves in. Of course, from the Stone Age on, humanity has always represented a difficult proposition. Our history is, in many ways, a running story of conflicts and wars, one seemingly grimmer than the next—a history that has anything but ended in our moment.
You would think, of course, that, with our very planet imperiled by climate change, which is slowly heating it to the boiling point, we might at least have taken a passing break from fighting each other. That would seem like an especially obvious thing to do, since war pours into the atmosphere in a stunning fashion the fossil fuels that are heating this planet so destructively. But no such luck, of course.
And imagine that, at a moment in 2025 when, from Europe to the United States, we increasingly had a planet that was all too literally in flames, whether from our wars with each other or our ongoing climate war on the planet itself, Americans sent a distinct flamethrower into the White House for a second time.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Even in Europe, a continent warming up approximately twice as fast as the rest of the planet, where only recently more than 300,000 people in France and Spain were displaced by heat and wildfires of a startling kind, there’s still an ongoing major war between Russia and Ukraine. And thanks at least in part to it, at a time when humanity seems incapable of putting much effort into fighting climate change, a whole new form of fighting each other (by drone) has been developed in a distinctly unnerving fashion. And of course, Europe is hardly alone, since wars continue to be fought across parts of the Middle East (thanks significantly to “my” president and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu), and in Somalia and Sudan in Africa. In short, despite everything we humans might theoretically learn from our past, nothing truly seems to get in the way of more of the same.
Only recently, of course, “my” president launched a war more or less out of the blue against Iran. Yes, Iran, a country that—my best guess—most Americans couldn’t even locate on a map of the world! And talk about learning nothing from the past, how totally mad that my country—theoretically still the greatest power on planet Earth—should start yet another war thousands and thousands of miles away, given that it hasn’t actually emerged victorious from a single one of the wars it’s fought since World War II. And that’s true, despite the fact that it continues to fund its military to the tune of about a trillion dollars annually, year after endless year. And note that “my” president, who only recently launched that seemingly random war on Iran, also appears all too determined to raise the Pentagon budget from a mere (just joking, of course) trillion dollars yearly to one and a half trillion dollars.
A Planet Heading for the Boiling Point?
And yes, I’m aware that, almost 25 years after I first began writing pieces like this, I’m distinctly repeating myself, which is hardly unreasonable given the repetitiveness of both my country and humanity when it comes to such crucial matters. Although, wait a second, I may not be giving Americans the credit they deserve! After all, there was nothing repetitious about Donald Trump (not until his second term in office anyway)! Historically speaking, he’s come about as close as anyone could to being a one-of-a-kind American president and something of a unique global leader as well. He’s certainly a distinctive reminder that, from time to time, we humans can indeed truly change the script (however dismally).
I mean, the country that once elected George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy (as well, of course, as Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, and Ronald Reagan) has certainly flipped the script entirely with Donald Trump in the White House. We’re talking, after all, about the man who is now building not an Arc de Triomphe or even an Arc de Trump in Washington, DC, but an Arc de Défaite (yes, that’s defeat in French!)—the largest on Earth. But perhaps that shouldn’t be considered even faintly strange, given what the American military has been unable to do—win a war—across this planet since World War II.
In the future, all of us could become a new version of migrants with nowhere to go (unless Elon Musk truly does settle Mars) on a planet heading for the boiling point.
And imagine that, at a moment in 2025 when, from Europe to the United States, we increasingly had a planet that was all too literally in flames, whether from our wars with each other or our ongoing climate war on the planet itself, Americans sent a distinct flamethrower into the White House for a second time. Who would have believed it once upon a time? (Of course, who would then have believed that humanity could potentially destroy this planet as a habitable place for life?)
Honestly, once upon a time, no one could have made all this up: the greatest power on Earth (oh, wait, that may now be China!) in the midst of the most stunningly dangerous “war” of all time, our war on the planet itself (all too mildly and pleasantly labelled climate change, rather than climate catastrophe, climate explosion, or climate hell) and led by—yes!—that living climate catastrophe Donald J. Trump, distinctly the madman-in-chief of a country in decline on a planet that itself is beginning to experience the kind of decline that would once have been unimaginable.
Whew, that was one long sentence! And imagine that, in the years to come, barring a surprise, we humans—incapable of stopping our wars and so much else—could all too literally heat this planet to the boiling point, leaving us all in the situation that hundreds of thousands of French and Spanish people recently experienced. In the future, all of us could become a new version of migrants with nowhere to go (unless Elon Musk truly does settle Mars) on a planet heading for the boiling point.
And in that context, imagine what our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will think about the fact that nearly 50% of American voters (twice!) elected Donald J. Trump, the planet-destroyer-in-chief, as president of the United States.
Excuse me, I’m starting to sweat...
Keep ReadingShow Less
Be Prepared to Protect Our Democracy in November From a Trumpian Plot
Given that the feds are not only not going to help but are actively working toward rigging or even seizing control of this November’s election, it’s going to be up to us and the individual states to make sure our voices are heard and our votes are properly counted.
Aug 13, 2026
Back in the days when conservatives were so hungry for media platforms that they’d come on progressive shows, I used to regularly debate Wayne Allen Root (here and here, for example). Instead of trying to convince me, though, Root has recently taken to giving President Donald Trump ideas about things to do, like stealing the election this fall.
On his show on “Real” America’s Voice, Root told Trump:
Let me put an idea in your head. Because it’s so hard to get the Senate to do anything, now they’re on recess, they never get anything done. If they never get the SAVE America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections…
And the Supreme Court ruled in 1983, under [Ronald] Reagan, in INS vs. Chadha, that if you declare a national security emergency as the president of the United States, they can’t challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress.
So if you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship, and a limit to mail-in ballots, and you don’t even need the Senate’s vote.
Trump seemed both unsurprised and unfazed, as if this were a regular topic of conversation in the White House.
“Let me just say that stranger things have happened,” he replied, adding, “OK, I’ll leave it at that.”
Since 1968, stealing elections has become a sport for Republicans. That was the year that Richard Nixon was running for president against VP Hubert Humphrey—who had just successfully negotiated peace between North and South Vietnam—when Nixon had his people reach out to the leaders of South Vietnam and promise them riches if they’d refuse to go to Paris and sign the deal.
When the FBI informed President Lyndon B. Johnson about it, he correctly called it “treason,” although we didn’t learn about it until years later when the LBJ Library released the tapes.
In 1980, it was Reagan’s turn to steal an election. Jimmy Carter was riding high in the wake of Nixon’s resignation and VP Spiro Agnew’s stepping down to avoid a bribery prosecution, but then the Iranians seized the American embassy in Tehran.
The president of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, wanted to release the hostages and had worked out a deal with Carter to do just that, but the Reagan campaign met with the Ayatollah’s people and promised to sell them weapons and military spare parts if they’d just hold the hostages until after the election, destroying Carter’s reelection chances.
The hostages were released, by way of sealing the deal, at the exact moment when Reagan put his hand on the Bible to be sworn in, and for years Reagan shipped them banned weaponry until the deal was busted wide open as the Iran-Contra Scandal.
In 2000, Republicans knew the election would probably come down to Florida, the state then run by candidate George W. Bush’s brother Jeb, so Jeb had his secretary of state purge at least 50,000 Black people from the voting rolls just months before the election. His brother won the state, and thus the White House, by 537 votes: It would have been an epic loss without that last-minute voter purge. And then five corrupt Republicans on the US Supreme Court shut down the Florida Supreme Court-mandated recount, which would’ve revealed the purge.
While Trump can’t legally cancel the election, the more he and his toadies can cast doubt on its legitimacy, the more likely it is that they can pull off the same type of coup as Republicans did in 1968, 1980, and 2000.
None of these Republican election thefts are controversial; all are well-documented.
As was Trump’s willingness to see his own Vice President, Mike Pence, hanged by an angry mob if that was what it’d take to keep Donald in the White House for another four years. It’s safe to assume that if he was okay with that, there’s nothing off the table for this fall.
While Trump’s legal power to seize control of our election this fall is in dispute, his ability to disrupt it isn’t.
- He’s already issued an executive order directing the Post Office to refuse to deliver ballots to or from citizens not on his approved voter list or in states that refused to give him their voter rolls. Postmaster General David Steiner says he’s willing to do what Trump wants.
- A federal judge back last October ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to provide his court with the details of ICE’s plans for this fall’s election and 10 months later they’re still stonewalling, refusing to turn over any internal documents.
- Reuters reported last month that White House officials had already discussed declaring a national emergency and creating a federal voting task force, including ways of bypassing the Election Assistance Commission and seizing control of voting and vote-tabulating machines.
- Voters in 41 states have election deniers on the ballot this fall, while dozens of known election deniers have taken control of election-running positions across the country.
So, given that the feds are not only not going to help but are actively working toward rigging or even seizing control of this November’s election, it’s going to be up to us and the individual states to make sure our voices are heard and our votes are properly counted.
We should be thinking of this as an election continuity exercise that may not be necessary but, like wearing a seat belt, could be essential if Trump tries to repeat 2020 in some way. At the moment, he’s essentially a cornered rat.
Therefore, Democrats must:
- Educate Americans about the Constitution, which hands elections off to the states exclusively with only minimal federal standards.
- If Trump tries to claim a national emergency—even if it has a real basis, like Iran hitting us hard or some other 9/11-type event—Americans need to know that we held elections through the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Republican Great Depression, both World Wars, and through other times of national crisis, and 2026 must not be an exception.
- States need to prepare for litigation with complaints, TRO motions, and even appellate briefs composed and ready to file on a moment’s notice. Taking days to fully respond to a Trump attempt to blow up our elections could be disastrous, as Al Gore learned 26 years ago.
- Involve Republicans when we can find the rare ones who will put country above party. Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia pushed back in 2021 when Trump tried to get him to “find” roughly 11,000 ballots; we must be looking for other Republicans who may have enough integrity to resist a Trump-led coup attempt.
- Steel the spines of our election administrators by having their backs, both legally and physically. Secretaries of state, county clerks, election boards, and governors should all know in advance exactly who has authority to order what. The last thing we want are thousands of local election officials asking, “Are we supposed to comply?” on Election Day. When coup attempts work it’s typically because they used the element of surprise to their benefit; we need to blunt that weapon.
- Prepare for Trump’s goons—federal (like ICE or the National Guard) or Proud Boys-Klan-types—around polling places. This is a violation of a federal law that dates back to the Civil War; it’s illegal for “troops or armed men” to show up at any polling places in the country, and the penalty is five years in prison.
- Encourage early voting and other ways to build redundancy into our election systems, and tell people to check their voter registration now at vote.org, particularly if they live in a red state, as those states have been actively and aggressively purging their voting rolls for months now, especially in their blue cities.
- Be prepared for the corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court to intervene, as they did in the 2000 election, to try to hand various elections to Republicans. They’ve already granted Trump sweeping immunity from criminal acts, presumably including election fraud.
- Finally, as Al Gore can tell you from sad experience, we need to prepare for the inevitable onslaught of right-wing propaganda calling elections into question and claiming fraud.
People old enough to remember how the GOP gamed this in Florida in 2000 know what I’m talking about; Republican congressional staffers flew down to Florida (along with John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) to pound on counting center windows and demand the election Al Gore won be given to the “rightful winner,” George W. Bush.
While Trump can’t legally cancel the election, the more he and his toadies can cast doubt on its legitimacy, the more likely it is that they can pull off the same type of coup as Republicans did in 1968, 1980, and 2000.
For over a decade now, close races immediately produce Republican claims of fraud: Lawyers, election officials, and communications systems must be fully prepared to deal with lies and propaganda long before November.
Contact your local elections office and volunteer to help out if you can; right-wingers are doing so right now, particularly in places where they can challenge mail-in vote signatures. We need to be there, too.
Better safe than sorry, as the old saying goes. Pass it along…
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can AOC Win the Working Class?
Before running for president, she needs to prove she can build a national workng-class coalition.
Aug 13, 2026
The bandwagon for Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for president is rolling. She appears to have all the requisite qualities for success—smart, charismatic, passionate about her beliefs, and wildly popular among students and the left as well as among college-educated liberals. She is positioned as the successor to Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders after their successful Fighting Oligarchy series of rallies last year. And as a national candidate she could carry the social democratic banner forward, bringing, at the very least, tens of thousands of new members into the Democratic Socialists of America.
Bhaskar Sunkara, the founding editor of Jacobin, believes AOC “can run a serious national campaign on the left and pull a movement behind it,” but in making his case he also points out a major shortcoming—she is not really a working-class candidate and doesn’t have a visceral understanding of class.
Sunkara frankly acknowledges that AOC, unlike Bernie, “sometimes drift(s) into the dialect of the progressive nonprofit and academic world, using terms more familiar in seminar rooms than union halls.”
For example, he points to the congresswoman’s response in 2022 to Democrats who objected to the use of Latinx, a term used by only about 3% of Hispanics. Sunkara says, “She suggested “Latine” as an improvement—a solution to a problem most Latinos didn’t know they had.”
Progressive dreams cannot become reality without extensive working-class support.
AOC’s promotion of the Green New Deal attempted to bridge the concerns of environmentalists and members concerned about social justice issues but suffered from her failure to frame it in terms of class. Sunkara describes her floor resolution as almost a parady of balkanized intersectionality discourse, He writes:
That resolution promised to repair the historic oppression of Indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, elderly people, unhoused people, people with disabilities, and youth. Of course, nobody on that list is unwronged. But itemizing members of the same economic class as discrete interest groups was the opposite of how the 2016 Sanders campaign spoke, and of how the left traditionally has. It was the scholarly language of intersectionality, not the commonsense solidarity she was trying to inspire.
Nevertheless, Sunkara is all in on an AOC candidacy in 2028.
I’m not.
My biggest concern is that we have scant evidence that AOC can succeed among working-class voters, especially white working-class voters. She has won election four times in an overwhelmingly Democratic district that is 52% Hispanic and only 18% white. New York’s 14th Congressional District, created in 2012, has never elected a Republican. Its predecessor, the 7th District, was represented by Democrats continuously from 1969 onward. AOC has yet to be tested in purple or red districts.
Sunkara points to the enormous crowds she and Bernie drew during their Fighting Oligarchy tour in conservative areas:
More than 12,500 people turned out for a rally in Nampa, Idaho, a bigger crowd than the number of registered Democrats in the entire county. Twenty thousand came out in deep-red Utah.
The Fighting Oligarchy tour certainly shows that the Sanders-AOC partnership has extraordinary appeal. It does not yet prove that AOC, by herself, can draw comparable crowds in red America.
And let’s put those numbers in perspective. In Idaho’s Canyon County, in which Nampa is located, there are roughly 68,000 registered Republicans, 32,000 unaffiliated voters, and only 12,000 registered Democrats. In Utah, more than 1 million voters (49%) are registered Republicans, while only about 14%, 250,000 or so, are Democrats. Those rallies suggest AOC could do well in Democratic primaries in red states, but they provide little support for the idea that AOC can break through the Republican advantage in deeply conservative areas.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say AOC wins the Democratic nomination in 2028. How might she fare against a Republican such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, or Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)?
Foreign policy experience is likely to be a major issue. AOC, to date, has no diplomatic, military, intelligence, or executive national security experience. Nor has she served on the House Armed Services Committee, where much of Congress’ work on national security takes place. Think what you will about Vance and Rubio, they have been immersed in foreign policy in the second Trump term. Convincing skeptical voters that she is prepared to lead the country through major international crises will be a significant challenge because of her lack of experience.
On the electoral front, AOC needs to prove to voters like me that she can appeal to the working class. Can she attract a broader base than the one she has needed to win reelection in her home district? One way to do that would be to challenge and beat Chuck Schumer for New York’s Senate seat and then defeat the Republican nominee in the general election. There’s a good chance she could win both races, and if she did we would have a much clearer picture of whether she can sell a progressive program to working-class New Yorkers who do not live in overwhelmingly Democratic districts.
That experience and the success that followed would make her a much stronger candidate for higher office. And what is the rush? Ocasio-Cortez is only 36 years old. It is not asking too much for her to gain more experience and learn how to translate her ideological commitments into the kind of class-centered politics that Bernie Sanders mastered. She will undoubtedly continue to inspire the DSA faithful, a younger and well-educated cohort, but until I see her build genuine enthusiasm among blue-collar and service workers, I’m choosing to remain skeptical.
As I’ve written before, progressive dreams cannot become reality without extensive working-class support. Let’s see her do the hard work of winning its allegiance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Paper Tiger: The Failure of America’s Trillion-Dollar War Machine
From Korea in the early 1950s to Iran today, the US armed forces have lost nearly every war they have fought, while inflicting mass destruction on foreign countries and siphoning resources away from people's needs at home.
Aug 13, 2026
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, or SIPRI, the United States spent $21 trillion on its military between 2001 and 2024, in constant 2024 dollars, equal to the combined military spending of the next 18 countries. Iran barely made that list at all, spending only 2% of what the US did, and SIPRI estimated Iran’s 2025 military budget at only $7.5 billion. So how is Iran holding its own against the multitrillion-dollar US war machine?
A critical difference between the US war on Iran and previous US and allied bombing campaigns against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Gaza is that the US and Israel have failed to destroy Iran’s air defense system and cannot fly warplanes over Iran without risking the loss of planes and pilots to enemy fire. Iran has wisely built its critical defense infrastructure underground, with arms factories, weapons stockpiles, and launch sites sheltered safely beneath its impenetrable mountainous terrain.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed on March 10 that the US had “total air dominance” over Iran, but that is still not true. Instead, US forces are mainly attacking Iran with stand-off weapons from outside Iran’s borders, radically depleting US stockpiles of extraordinarily expensive weapons.
Even though US warplanes avoid entering Iranian airspace, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the US has lost at least four F-15 fighters, an F-35, an A-10, seven KC-135 refueling planes, an E-6 AWACS plane, two MC-130J special operations aircraft, a helicopter, a high-altitude Triton drone, and 24 MQ-9 Reaper drones.
The American people have sacrificed enormously to pay for this obsolete, overpriced, and ineffective war machine.
By contrast, during the full-scale invasion of Iraq in 2003, US forces lost only one A-10 and six helicopters, after systematically destroying much of Iraq's air defenses through a low-intensity bombing campaign conducted under cover of the so-called no-fly zones, which the US, UK, and France unilaterally imposed after the First Gulf War in 1991.
In 2003, the US Armed Forces dropped 13,000 tons of bombs and missiles on Iraq in the first 30 days of the war. But only 800 tons, or 6%, of those munitions were cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons like the ones the US is now relying on against Iran.
The US has already depleted one-third of its stand-off and air defense weapons stocks, including JASSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles and SM-2, -3, and -6 anti-aircraft missiles, as well as half its stocks of Patriot and THAAD interceptors and the new Precision Strike Missiles that are replacing the shorter-range ATACMs. These missiles range in price from $700,000 each for JASSMs up to $12 million each for THAAD interceptors, and many will take years to replace.
So the US is using multimillion dollar missiles that are irreplaceable in the short term to try, and often fail, to intercept Shahed drones that cost Iran between $20,000 and $50,000 each. This is a stark contrast from Iraq in 2003, when the US weapon of choice was its 500-poun GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, which costs only $22,000, and the 7,000 bombs used to attack Iraq were easily restocked.
To make up for the Navy’s dwindling missile stocks in the war zone, the US is flying B-1 bombers from a British airbase at Fairford in England to fire Tomahawk missiles at Iran. So many planes are now flying from so far away to attack Iran that the US has also had to send dozens more aerial refueling planes to reinforce the 60 it already had stationed in Israel.
The Russians have demonstrated in Ukraine that the capacity to quickly ramp up production of relatively inexpensive artillery shells and drones can be more critical in a war than spending trillions on big-ticket weapons programs. Meanwhile, the corrupt US military-industrial complex has built a gold-plated revolving door between the US arms industry; the Pentagon top brass; and a captive, co-opted civilian government. It has produced ever more expensive weapons, but it has lost nearly every war it has fought.
The only wars the US has won since 1945 were three short wars to recover small neocolonial outposts in Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait, as the US took advantage of the weakening of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Otherwise, from Korea in the early 1950s to Iran today, the US armed forces have lost every single war, while inflicting mass destruction on countries and people the US government claimed to be liberating. As the saying goes, “With friends like us, who needs enemies?”
Like many US industries, the post-Cold War US arms industry has become consolidated around a cabal of five firms—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon (now RTX), General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman—whose continued growth depends on ever-greater profits from increasingly expensive warships, warplanes, and weapons, while endless wars and “threats” serve to justify siphoning more and more of America’s national wealth into their coffers.
The US government and corporate media have told Americans for decades that these extraordinary military expenditures and endless wars are something to be proud of, and many Americans have swallowed this perverted myth of US military prowess. The Pentagon works hard to bolster its public image, spending $2 billion per year on recruitment and retention, and $1.14 billion on advertising contracts in 2023 alone.
But that narrative is beginning to crack. As with many aspects of the US political and economic system, more and more Americans are questioning what they have been taught about the US military, and veterans themselves are often the most outspoken critics.
Writing in Business Insider about the problems facing US military recruiters, Kelsey Baker reported that many veterans of the “Global War on Terror” now discourage their own children from joining the military. Three of the recruiters Baker spoke to said guns had been drawn on them by the parents of teenagers they were targeting for recruitment, and one recruiter recalled an irate parent calling him a “baby killer” and a government slave.
In Iran, the United States is caught between escalating a catastrophic, unwinnable war it should never have started and the urgent need to rethink the illegal, corrupt, policy of aggressive war it has pursued since 2001.
The September 11 attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers—not by the countries that the United States went on to invade and occupy. Yet our leaders responded to those horrific crimes with a multitrillion-dollar investment in new weapons and imperial military expansion—a decision driven by precisely the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech in 1961.
US occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were defeated by lightly-armed resistance forces defending their own countries. Yet America’s leaders ignored their own failures and defeats, continuing to blindly climb the escalation ladder—first confronting Russia through the war in Ukraine and now taking on Iran in its own territory.
We should note that it was under Democratic administrations that the US backed a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and then rejected a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in April 2022, while President Donald Trump, a Republican, assassinated Iran’s top military leader in 2020 and launched wars on Iran, in cahoots with Israel, in 2025 and 2026. The US-Israeli genocide in Gaza, like the illegal occupation that spawned it, still enjoys bipartisan support in Congress, but not from the American people its members claim to represent.
Many Americans understood the dangers of the United States’ militarized response to the crimes of September 11, 2001, even before the Pentagon embarked on its spending spree and unleashed mass destruction on country after country.
Chalmers Johnson wrote his prescient and widely acclaimed book, Blowback, in 1999, explaining how US militarism and imperialism inevitably sow the seeds for cataclysmic events like the 9/11 attacks. He followed it with three more books in his American Empire Project before his death in 2010.
Former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz told NPR a week after 9/11: “It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done… We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don't approve of what has happened.”
By the time the United States was preparing to invade Iraq in 2003, international outrage was so widespread that it produced the largest global street protests in history, with up to 36 million people protesting in 60 countries. But US leaders ignored the world’s rejection of their lies, both at the United Nations and in the streets, and insisted on pretending that Iraq had chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons, and was somehow responsible for the crimes of September 11.
The brainwashing of US occupation troops in Iraq was so complete that, even three years into the war, in February 2006, 85% of US occupation forces in Iraq told a Zogby poll that their main mission there was to “retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.”
The lies, brainwashing, torture, civilian massacres, and other war crimes that have corrupted the last 25 years of American military history—together with the outrageous cost—have turned the American people squarely against more new wars. But incredibly, they have failed to persuade members of Congress to exercise their constitutional responsibility to stop feeding the out-of-control US military-industrial complex with record amounts of money, weapons, and false pretexts for war.
Trump has requested a record $1.5 trillion in military spending for FY2027. The House-passed National Defense Authorization Act authorizes $1.15 trillion in discretionary military spending, with additional funding outside the NDAA bringing the administration’s overall military-spending plan to $1.5 trillion. The Senate has so far blocked its version of the NDAA.
The draft NDAA also includes unprecedented provisions to further integrate US and Israeli weapons production and intelligence sharing.
Trump’s frustration over the US-Israeli failure to defeat Iran stems from the same delusion of US military supremacy that infected his predecessors, especially since the end of the Cold War.
But in his 2018 book Losing Military Supremacy: the Myopia of American Strategic Planning, Andrei Martyanov warned that huge US investments in aircraft carriers and other big-ticket warships and warplanes were rapidly being rendered obsolete by a new generation of Russian and Chinese missiles capable of traveling much faster and farther than the most advanced missiles in the US arsenal.
Now Iranian missiles and drones have fundamentally altered the military balance in the Middle East. They have driven the US military out of its bases in the Persian Gulf and are forcing US aircraft carriers to stay 1,000 miles from the coast of Iran. US Central Command has had to relocate its regional headquarters from Qatar to Jordan, but Iran has attacked it there too.
Now the United States is repositioning more of its forces in the Middle East to Israel. This raises the stakes, and increases the risks, of any future escalation in the war on Iran, and it further expands the entangling US military alliance with the genocidal state of Israel, which most Americans now oppose.
On August 8, Iran reiterated six points from the Memorandum of Understanding that Trump already signed on June 17, and insisted that the United States must comply with them before it will reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.
Western commentators have described these as tough new conditions, but they are neither new nor tougher than before. They simply make explicit what was already implicit—for example, by specifically mentioning Palestine and Yemen, whereas the original memorandum merely called for ending the war "on all fronts, including Lebanon.” The United States and Israel started this war, and the United States has the power to end it by negotiating in good faith, based on the memorandum it already agreed to.
The American people have sacrificed enormously to pay for this obsolete, overpriced, and ineffective war machine. Many have paid with their lives, their limbs, or their health. All of us pay the opportunity cost of our leaders’ warmongering and reckless squandering of our national wealth, leaving us without the basic support systems that our neighbors in other developed countries take for granted, from universal free healthcare and quality public education to living wages and paid vacation time.
The US government’s corrupt priorities leave our most serious problems unaddressed, while undermining global efforts to address them, from the destruction of the climate and the natural world to the ever-present danger of nuclear war.
As this year’s primary election results suggest, most Americans want a society that cares for its people, with a government that addresses our most urgent needs. That must surely include dismantling this failed, corrupt, out-of-control, and absurdly expensive war machine.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corporate Democrats Must Realize the Enemy Is Trump and the Fascists—Not Progressives
If the so-called "centrists" continue their attacks into the general election, they could find themselves in the gulag sitting next to the leftists they so clearly despise—just like in Hitler's Germany.
Aug 12, 2026
In the early 1930s moderate and leftists Germans attacked each other as badly as they attacked Hitler and the Nazis.
The Social Democratic Party (SPD) was a large democratic socialist party supporting parliamentary democracy, often joined Weimar Republic governments, and generally favored gradual reform.
The Communist Party ("KPD") considered themselves revolutionary socialists and believed that the capitalist system should ultimately be overthrown.
The SPD and KPD were both mass parties in the 1920-'30s, each getting millions of votes and turning out tens of thousands of people in mass demonstrations. But they considered themselves enemies. Their supporters literally fought each other in the streets.
The KPD considered the SPD to be "social fascists," as dangerous as the Nazis.
SPD leaders believed the KPD sought to destroy parliamentary democracy and regarded themselves as defenders of constitutional government against extremists on their left and right. SPD-controlled governments had also used police against KPD organizations and demonstrations.
In the last democratic elections in November of 1932, the SPD received 20.43% of the vote, the KPD received 16.86% of the vote and the Nazi Party received 33.09% of the vote. Thus the combined SPD and KPD received a Parliamentary plurality of 37.29% of the vote compared to the Nazi's 33.09%. But with the SPD and KPD refusing to unite, German President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. Soon after, Hitler outlawed both parties on the left, arrested many of their leaders, and subsequently started to send them to concentration camps.
Today, there are real political differences between Democratic so-called "moderates" and Democratic "progressives." But until the mid-term elections, the great danger that must be defeated is MAGA-style fascims. If Democrats do not win at least one (or hopefully) both Houses of Congress, there will be little to block at least two more years of escalating Trumpian authoritarianism which could effectively destroy the Republic.
Between now and November, Democratic moderates and progressives need to form a United Front against MAGA. They need to avoid the mistakes of the German left in the 1930s. For the immediate term—whether there are differences of opinion about Medicare for All or US aid to Israel—the focus must be on fighting MAGA and winning congressional seats for Democrats, whether the nominees in the general election are moderate or progressive.
On paper, Democratic candidates seem to be moving in this direction. In Michigan the moderate Democratic loser, Haley Stevens, and the progressive Democratic winner, Abdul El Sayed spoke on the phone and Stevens endorsed El Sayed. On social media, Stevens posted that she if offering El Sayed "my full support as we work to defeat Mike Rogers this November."
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke on the phone with El Sayed, and Schumer reportedly telling the Michigan nominee, "I don’t need you to like me. I just need you to win." “We had a really good conversation,” Schumer said. “I told him I think we’d agree on things: Beat Rogers, win Michigan, take back the Senate. He said I agree on all three.” Schumer added that his takeaway from the call was that “we have more that unites us than divides us."
But a meaningful Democratic United Front will take more than rhetoric. Control of Congress is likely to be extraordinarily close. Democratic moderates must not only say nice things about progressive nominees. They must use their money and their supporters to campaign as strongly for them as they would if their preferred moderates had won the nominations. And for their part, progressive nominees need to take a temporary break from attacking moderate Democrats as mere corporate tools. In a post primary interview, El-Sayed described Schumer as “pragmatic”—a pulled punch if ever there was one.
But it's concerning that some so-called moderate Democrats are more intent on the progressive nominees losing the general election than on defeating MAGA. Jonathan Cowan, president of Third Way, a leading corporate-friendly Democratic group told the New York Times that it is preparing a new $15 million effort "to discredit" democratic socialism. According to the Times, the "group plans to target the Democratic Socialists of America movement, which he believes poses a 'mortal danger' for Democrats. Cowan told the newspaper that the effort "would include opposition research into DSA, polling, social media programs and educating Democratic activists and leaders. It would target both proud democratic socialists and those such as Dr. El-Sayed, whom he derided as performing the 'DSA dodge'— flirting with democratic socialists enough to get their organizing manpower and support while remaining distant enough to avoid the explicit label."
Meanwhile, former Bill Clinton campaign advisor James Carville proclaimed that Darializa Avila Chevalier, whom a majority of New York Democratic voters chose to run for Congress, should not be seated by the Democratic caucus if she wins the seat, as is likely. He said of Chevalier, “I ain't in the same party as you,” and explicitly proposed that Democrats consider the word “schism.” Comedian Bill Maher—who now describes himself as "left of center, slightly"—recently said that if progressives dominate the Democratic Party, he would consider supporting JD Vance or Marco Rubio in 2028.
These so-called "moderate" Democrats are imitating the 1930s German left. If their efforts help MAGA to retain Congress they will be repressed along with the "progressives." Eventually, they could all end up sharing the same jail cells.
Keep ReadingShow Less
America Promises Safe Schools, So Why Are Children Still Exposed to Toxic Pesticides?
Schools should be among the safest places in a child's life, not environments where unnecessary exposure to hazardous chemicals remains a possibility.
Aug 12, 2026
In 1998, my 6-year-old son walked onto his Los Angeles elementary school campus and into a preventable crisis.
A school gardener wearing a full hazardous materials suit was spraying pesticides, unaware that children were nearby. My son, unprotected, was sprayed directly in the face with a toxic pesticide. Within minutes, he struggled to breathe and suffered a severe asthma attack.
He recovered. But one question stayed with both of us: How could this happen at a school?
The contradiction was impossible to ignore: If the pesticide required an adult applicator to wear full protective equipment, why was it considered safe to use where children could be exposed?
California's experience demonstrated that schools do not have to choose between controlling pests and protecting students. They can accomplish both.
Children are not simply smaller adults. Pound for pound, they breathe more air; consume more food and water; and their brains, lungs, immune systems, and endocrine systems are still developing. These differences make them uniquely vulnerable to environmental chemicals. Research has linked exposure to certain pesticides with asthma, learning and developmental problems, neurological effects, endocrine disruption, and other long-term health concerns. Children cannot choose where they spend their days, nor can they protect themselves from environmental hazards created by adults. That responsibility belongs to us.
My son's exposure changed the course of my life. It led me to establish California Safe Schools, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting children from harmful environmental exposures. I worked with parents, educators, physicians, scientists, and school officials to create the groundbreaking Los Angeles Unified School District Integrated Pest Management Policy, one of the first of its kind in the nation. Rather than relying on routine pesticide spraying, the policy embraced the Precautionary Principle: When there is credible evidence that a chemical may harm children's health, schools should take preventive action even if every scientific question has not yet been answered. Simply put, children's health should come before convenience.
The policy also established the public's Right to Know, recognizing that parents, teachers, and school employees deserve timely information about pesticides used on school campuses. Families cannot make informed decisions or advocate for their children's health if they are unaware of when or what pesticides are being applied. Transparency became a cornerstone of protecting students.
The Los Angeles policy became a model for California and helped pave the way for the Healthy Schools Act of 2000, which required schools to notify parents and staff before pesticide applications, maintain records of pesticide use, and encourage schools to adopt Integrated Pest Management practices that emphasize prevention and least-toxic pest control methods.
California strengthened these protections even further with AB 405, authored by Assemblymember Cindy Montañez (D-39), sponsored by California Safe Schools, and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger in 2005.The law prohibited the use on school sites of experimental pesticides, pesticides under conditional registration that had not completed all required health and environmental testing, and pesticides that the US Environmental Protection Agency was phasing out because of health or environmental concerns. The legislation recognized a simple but important principle: Children should never be exposed at school to pesticides that have not been fully evaluated for safety or that regulators have already determined should be removed from use. AB 405 closed important gaps in school pesticide protections and reinforced California's commitment to putting children's health first and protecting more than 6 million students, teachers, and staff.
Over the past 28 years, California Safe Schools has continued to work with parents, educators, students, scientists, physicians, school officials, and policymakers to advocate for safer school environments. One lesson has remained constant: Pesticide exposure in schools is almost always preventable.
Pesticides are designed to kill living organisms. While they target insects, weeds, fungi, and rodents, many also pose risks to human health. The question has never been whether schools should control pests. They should. The real question is how they do it.
For decades, many schools relied on routine pesticide spraying as the first line of defense. Yet experts have long recognized that safer, more effective approaches exist. Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, focuses first on prevention by eliminating the conditions that allow pests to thrive. Better sanitation, sealing cracks and openings, repairing leaks, improving waste management, and monitoring pest activity often reduce or eliminate the need for chemical pesticides. When pesticides are necessary, IPM emphasizes choosing the least hazardous products and applying them only when children are not present or when they could reasonably be exposed.
California's experience demonstrated that schools do not have to choose between controlling pests and protecting students. They can accomplish both.
Unfortunately, protections remain uneven across the United States. While some states and school districts have adopted strong Integrated Pest Management programs, others continue to rely heavily on pesticide applications with fewer safeguards. Parents may receive little or no advance notice before pesticides are used, and school staff may lack training in safer pest management practices. As a result, children's protection often depends on where they live rather than on a consistent national standard.
This is particularly troubling because children spend approximately 1,000 hours each year at school. Schools should be among the safest places in a child's life, not environments where unnecessary exposure to hazardous chemicals remains a possibility.
The good news is that we already know what works.
Integrated Pest Management has been successfully implemented in thousands of schools across the country. It reduces pesticide use while maintaining effective pest control, often lowering long-term maintenance costs by addressing the underlying causes of infestations rather than repeatedly treating the symptoms. Prevention is not only safer; it is also smarter.
Every school district should adopt comprehensive Integrated Pest Management policies that prioritize prevention, maintenance, monitoring, and least-toxic methods before chemical pesticides are considered. Hazardous pesticides should never be applied when children are present or could reasonably be exposed. Parents, teachers, and school employees should receive timely notification before any pesticide application so they can make informed decisions. School personnel and pest management professionals should receive ongoing training to ensure these policies are implemented consistently and effectively.
Most importantly, policymakers should recognize that children's health deserves a precautionary approach. When credible scientific evidence suggests a pesticide may pose a risk to children, protecting them should not depend on waiting years for absolute certainty while exposures continue. Prevention should always come before regret.
Nearly three decades after my son's exposure, we should still think about the question that was asked that day: Could it happen again?
The answer should be no.
No parent should have to wonder whether their child will be exposed to toxic pesticides during the school day. No child should suffer an asthma attack or another preventable health consequence because adults failed to take reasonable precautions.
We have the knowledge. We have safer alternatives. We have decades of successful experience showing that schools can manage pests without unnecessarily exposing children to hazardous chemicals.
The remaining question is whether we have the will to make those protections the standard in every school across America.
A safe school environment should never be left to chance. It should begin with a simple promise: No child should be placed in harm's way by preventable pesticide exposure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Family Grift vs. Trump Family Grift: Let's Do the Numbers
And it's not even close. If anyone is wondering, I did not forget to put the Biden numbers on the graph. They are just too small to be visible next to the Trump graft numbers.
Aug 12, 2026
Most people recognize that Donald Trump and his kids are stealing from us with both hands every day. But they are not as outraged as they should be because most have the view that everyone does it. While I will never defend the Democrats as paragons of honesty (what the hell are those crypto contributions?), they are not in the same ballpark as Trump and his crew.
Part of the confusion stems from the media’s refusal to ever put big numbers in context. They all know that the vast majority of their audience is not clear on the distinction between millions, billions, and trillions, and have no idea how large the federal budget is, but they refuse to take the ten seconds and ten words that would be needed to give readers a clearer sense of what is at stake.
The other source of confusion is that the Republicans spent four years endlessly hyping the “Biden crime family.” They used Congressional hearings, as well as thousands of appearances on TV news, shows to yell (often literally) about Biden family corruption.
And it’s clear it was not zero. Hunter Biden, while struggling with drug addiction, openly traded on his family name to land a well-paying perch with a Ukrainian energy company. He also managed to sell his artwork, which is not obviously of great value, for $50K a painting.
Joe’s younger brother James also seems to have traded on the family name, but the sums involved appear to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and mostly during the years 2017-2019, when Joe Biden was not even in public office.
It is a bad practice for family members to profit from their ties to a vice-president or president, but there is zero evidence that Joe Biden ever did anything to directly benefit his son or brothers in their business dealings. We can be pretty certain of this fact because Republicans in Congress and the White House, both in Trump’s first term and his current term, have left no stone unturned in trying to show Biden’s corruption. (Trump’s first impeachment was over his effort to extort Ukraine’s president to lie about Biden’s corruption.)
While it is difficult to get clear numbers on the extent of the corruption of Trump and his family in his current term, since they disclose as little as possible, and no one can accept what they do disclose at face value, we can try to put some numbers on it. At the very least, it should be totally clear that Trump’s corruption, by any measure, is in a totally different universe from even the worst imaginable story that can be told about Joe Biden and his family.
The list below is far from exhaustive. We will probably not know all the ways that Trump put money into his and his family’s pockets until long after his presidency, and maybe not even then. But this should be a good start.
Venezuela’s Oil: $13 billion
Trump has repeatedly said that “we” got $13 billion from selling Venezuela’s oil. This is after he kidnapped Venezuela’s president Nicholas Maduro, and put his vice-president Delcy Rodríguez in charge of the country. According to Trump, she is taking her orders from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Any money that the US gets from selling Venezuela’s oil is essentially stolen from Venezuela. It is their oil. But to make matters worse, there is literally zero accounting of this money. Under the law, any money obtained from Venezuela should go to the US Treasury. Any spending from this money should be approved by Congress.
Instead, Trump has sent the money to an account in Qatar, and it is unclear what is happening with it. Until it can be shown otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that Trump has personally pocketed it. If that is not the case, Trump should be able to document what has happened to this money any day of the week. Until he does show what happened to the money, we might as well assume it went into Donald Trump’s pockets.
Trump Family Crypto: $1.4 billion
Trump created his own crypto coin, $Trump, which people could buy as a way of currying favor with him. Melania Trump also made a crypto coin, $MELANIA. Trump’s crypto company, World Liberty Financial, has also put out a crypto coin. In addition to making money from selling the coins directly, Trump also profits from transactions in the coins, since they pay him a fee.
Trump’s “Gift” Plane from Qatar: $1.1 billion
A gift to the president while they are in office is a gift to the United States government. Nonetheless, Trump plans to take the plane that Qatar gave him back to Mar-a-Lago when he leaves office in less than two and a half years. The plane itself was worth $400 million. In addition, the Pentagon is spending between $400 million and $1 billion to install protective equipment which was already in place for the two existing versions of Air Force 1. I have included the middle figure of $700 million.
Trump Truth Social Insider Trading Sales: $1.2 billion
Donald Trump recently announced that he will sell a special subscription service where, for $100,000 a month, investors could get advance notice of Truth Social posts that are likely to move markets. We don’t know how many investors will ultimately pay for the opportunity to trade on inside information. But if it ends up being 1,000, Trump will pocket $1.2 billion a year from this scam.
Selling pardons: $10 million
Reuters did an investigation of Trump’s pardons, noting that 96 percent did not follow the normal procedure. They noted that just ten prominent pardon recipients contributed over $10 million to Trump campaign funds. The full amount given by all the people receiving pardons is surely considerably larger. The New York Times had an excellent piece back in March on the pardon industry that has arisen around Trump.
Melania Trump’s Documentary: $28 million
Melania Trump was given a contract by Amazon for rights to a documentary about her life. According to the Wall Street Journal, her take was $28 million. The film grossed $16 million.
Jared Kushner Hedge Fund Investments: $5.4 billion
Shortly after leaving the White House following Trump’s first term, first son-in-law Jared Kushner started a hedge fund, Affinity Partners, that quickly drew billions of dollars of investments from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries. While Kushner cannot directly put this money into his pocket, he is certainly positioned to get hundreds of millions in fees from the fund, especially if his proximity to Trump allows for his investments to have large payoffs.
Trump Sons’ Military Contracts: $315 million
Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump have recently taken an interest in several companies that are now getting contracts from the military. The Washington Post puts the value of the current and likely future contracts for these companies at $6.3 billion. If we say 5 percent will go to the Trump kids, this comes to $315 million.
While this list hopefully captures the biggest windfalls that Trump and his family are receiving from the presidency, it is certainly not a complete list of Trump family corruption. For example, Donald Trump, Jr. is a paid advisor to the Kalshi betting market and an investor in Polymarket. The Trump administration has worked aggressively to block regulation of these markets that might hurt their profits.
Donald Trump also trades stock frequently, often buying shares in companies just before they get a major government contract. The Trump family business has been blessed with favorable treatment of hotel and resort projects in countries seeking lower tariff rates on their exports to the United States. And the Trump family openly hawks their merchandise at the White House and on official websites. But most of these items would likely to be small potatoes compared to the graft listed here.
The Biden Crime Family’s Haul
As with the Trump numbers, these are crude guesses. People can also decide for themselves the extent to which they represent presidential corruption. For example, when Hunter Biden gets payments from shady Chinese businesspeople in a period where Joe Biden is a private citizen, is that presidential corruption?
Anyhow, here is what I get.
Hunter Biden Burisma Payments: $4.0 million
These were payments made to Hunter Biden for serving on the board of Burisma, a large Ukrainian energy firm. Hunter Biden served on Burisma’s board starting in 2014, when Joe Biden was vice-president, and remained on the board until 2019, leaving before Joe Biden’s term as president.
Hunter Biden Payment from Chinese Businesses: $2.6 million
Hunter received $2.6 million in payments in 2017 and 2018 from Chinese business owners with dubious business practices. These were years when Joe Biden was a private citizen, his term as vice-president having ended and more than two years before his term as president began.
Hunter Biden Art Sales: $1.5 million
Hunter sold 27 paintings between 2021 and 2023 that netted him approximately $1.5 million. Demand for his artwork has fallen considerably after his father left the White House.
Jim Biden Payment from Chinese Businesses: $500,000
It seems that some of the money from Hunter Biden’s business associates may have also gone to his uncle (Joe Biden’s brother). It’s not clear how much this might have been, but as with the payments to Hunter Biden, this was a period where Joe Biden was a private citizen.
If anyone is wondering, I did not forget to put the Biden numbers on the graph. They are just too small to be visible next to the Trump graft numbers.
The point here should be obvious to everyone. Joe Biden’s family members, or at least Hunter Biden, behaved in ways that most of us would likely view as unethical. But even if we blame President Biden for actions in which he had no direct involvement, his corruption is not anywhere near the level of corruption of the Trump administration.
Trump and his family seem to view the government as a massive candy store from which they can take whatever they want as long as Donald Trump is in the White House. And as long as Republicans control Congress and the Supreme Court, they might be right.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DC Under Siege: One Year of Military Occupation
We don't need billions of dollars going toward policing our neighbors and Social Schedulingmilitarization of our streets to make our communities safer—we need housing, education, healthcare, and a commitment to climate justice for true national security.
Aug 12, 2026
One year ago, the Trump administration brought 800 National Guard troops to occupy the streets of Washington, DC, part of the "Safe and Beautiful Task Force." There are now approximately 5,000 troops from 15 states deployed here, with some officially moved in and set to stay through 2029.
This does not include the alphabet soup of law enforcement agencies swarming our neighborhoods across the city, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the FBI, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Agency, Park Police, and more.
The National Guard can be found meandering around metro stations, museums, and grocery stores there for mere posture. Despite crime being down before they were deployed here. A new analysis from the Center for American Progress found the Guard deployment has not had a measurable impact on violent crime. They are not even trained in "civilian policing," and are unable to make actual arrests.
“This was never about reducing crime, especially not violent crime,” said Chandler Hall, who wrote the study. “This has been a show of force without any evidence to bear that it’s actually working."
"If my neighbors could experience military protection as something imposed upon them, what did civilians overseas think when American forces arrived in their communities?"
The cost of the Guard is estimated at $3 million a day, with some troops said to make close to $9,000 a month, including salary, lodging, and food per diem. It is hard to track the multi-year total in billions of dollars as the administration is far from transparent with the process.
The wasteful spending from the Department of War is unsurprising. Despite the Pentagon never passing an audit, the Department of War's proposed budget is record-breaking at $1.5 trillion for one year and does not include the recent billions for the Iran war and additional billions to Israel to further the genocide in Gaza and ongoing destruction in Lebanon.
Some of the reasoning for more troops in DC was for the Freedom 250 nationalism events, beginning with a UFC fight, State Fair, and Fourth of July festivities, all of which were disastrous, from cancellations, evacuations, and heat strokes to stage parts falling, nearly killing performers. The millions of dollars that went into these spectacles strained the local community. On July 4, my friend Nicky, a 71-year-old EMT, worked an 18-hour double shift for $27 an hour while constant military flyovers cost over $1.2 million.
Karen Degraphenreid, a veteran of the US Air Force as a Major of 10 years, got involved with Free DC when the military occupation in DC began. She describes her reflections from her time overseas to experiencing the guard takeover here at home.
"Washington is the only place in the country where more than 700,000 American citizens can have troops deployed to their streets by leaders they have no voting representation in choosing. We pay federal taxes, serve in the military, and fulfill every obligation of citizenship, yet Congress can override our local government and impose decisions that fundamentally reshape life in our city. That reality forced me to reconsider what 'protection' actually means," she said.
She continued:
Many of my neighbors never asked for soldiers outside their neighborhoods. Many openly opposed their presence. To them, the deployment did not feel like reassurance. It felt like a federal government exercising power over a city that has long been denied full democratic self-government.
And that realization led me to a question I had never seriously asked during my years in uniform.
If my neighbors could experience military protection as something imposed upon them, what did civilians overseas think when American forces arrived in their communities? When we said we were bringing security and stability, did they experience it as protection? Or did they see armed strangers exercising power over places that belonged to them?
Karen is also a member of Common Defense, which holds trainings for veterans to verbally confront the National Guard. Other veterans are speaking out to encourage their fellows and active-duty members to do the same. Groups like About Face have been welcoming anti-war veterans to become more organized for years, many of whom were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are actively opposed to the genocide in Gaza and the war on Iran.
At a press conference commemorating one year of the occupation, Luke Filomena, a registered nurse with National Nurses United, expressed the imperialist boomerang we are all witnessing
I’ve seen this administration and every administration prior instead choose to spend hundreds of billions, now trillions of dollars, yearly, to go toward countless amounts of death and destruction through endless imperialist wars overseas and the funding and arming of a genocide in Gaza. I’ve been forced to watch as hospitals filled with patients and fellow healthcare workers, as well as schools filled with children, are indiscriminately bombed in Gaza and in Iran, and as the US blockade of Cuba leaves hospitals without fuel and supplies to power lifesaving medical equipment and provide care for their patients.
"Over the past year, under the Trump regime, we’re now seeing the imperialist boomerang come back, with its sights locked on the Black, brown, and immigrant communities here in DC; those who I see each day at the bedside," Filomena explained.
It's one thing to be aware of connecting the dots, and it's another to act on it. DC has been public about its opposition to the military takeover of the city. When the occupation first launched, we disrupted Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's photo op at Shake Shack in Union Station. A month later, Trump and almost his entire cabinet went out to dinner at a restaurant near the White House, and we disrupted it, chanting, "Free DC, Free Palestine, Trump is the Hitler of our time." We later drowned out a public appearance by Hegseth, Stephen Miller, and hundreds of National Guard at Malcolm X Park.
Opportunities to confront the administration are rarer than daily encounters with the Guard. The same week budget cuts to Supplemental and Nutrition Assistance Program were being discussed in Congress, I asked a group of troops, who often appear to be aimlessly wandering our neighborhoods in groups of four, if people in their communities would be hit by this. I've asked them if they know their neighbors and what services they could use and be funded versus them being deployed here to hang outside of a convenience store. When the forest fires created thick smoke across DC, I asked why they were here and not putting out the fires.
In these conversations, they almost always nod their head and reach for their pamphlet, telling me and others who confront them to contact their supervisor. They come from states from Mississippi to Michigan, and there have been state-by-state campaigns to get the Guard to go home. Many of them are here voluntarily, not simply "following orders" as we are led to believe.
While we have 800 military bases abroad, the war economy is inescapable for most people within the United States as well. The predatory trap the military-industrial complex has on young people of color or those in poverty means they are heavily recruited to join the various branches of the military. The increased amount of data centers across the country is also making the war economy ever more apparent.
But the state can't use the excuse of job creation anymore. The Climate and Communities Institute shows us that employment at military contractors has plummeted over the past three decades, from an estimated 3.2 million workers during the Reagan military-spending peak in the mid-1980s to 1.1 million workers in 2020. The drop occurred despite Pentagon budgets rising 22% over the same period (not accounting for inflation costs). The alternative is a care economy, a system of paid and unpaid labor, services, and relationships that support human health, well-being, and daily life, that moves away from dirty, violent jobs that rely on weapons manufacturers and the fossil fuel industry.
We cannot normalize troops on our streets. But we must address the roots that cause normalization. We've been taught to salute combat veterans for their service no matter their history; we're used to discounts for military personnel and TV shows and Hollywood movies glorifying lower-level cadets to high-ranking commanders. While militarized superheroes are a common staple in US popular culture, teachers are buying their own school supplies for their classrooms, social workers have overwhelming caseloads, EMTs are working overtime while underpaid, and many veterans are unhoused or waitlisted at the VA.
Washington, DC does not need occupation; it needs fair representation. We don't need billions of dollars going toward policing our neighbors and militarization of our streets to make our communities safer—we need housing, education, healthcare, and a commitment to climate justice for true national security. In the meantime, we have only seen our community grow stronger to protect each other—more trainings, skill sharing, documenting, court support, fundraising, and more. Every day we are supporting each other by radically building community through getting to know our neighbors more deeply in real life.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model
AI is already inside election administration; before it moves deeper into the count, results have to stay verifiable.
Aug 12, 2026
Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.
But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.
I come to this question from health informatics, where I study how even AI-generated information that sounds clear, fluent, and helpful still requires careful review before it reaches a patient. The same verification problem applies to elections. The more authoritative a system sounds, the more important it becomes to make sure the output can be checked.
DC’s June 16 primary followed a system that requires more than a simple tally: Voters rank candidates, and if no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, lower-performing candidates are eliminated, and votes are redistributed according to voters’ next choices. New York City already uses ranked-choice voting in local primary and special elections.
AI may soon be able to produce election results in seconds. That does not mean it should.
There is nothing wrong with ranked-choice voting, but it must be carried out with verifiable results. Because election counting is not just a math problem; it is a trust problem, especially in the US today, where election workers face harassment, routine counting delays are recast as fraud, and many voters already doubt institutions before a single ballot is counted.
In this climate, counting ranked-choice votes in a way that allows for public verification might take longer than people are used to. Every ballot must be tied to a voter-verifiable record. Every round of tabulation must be explainable. Every disputed outcome must be auditable by people who can inspect the evidence themselves.
AI is not yet counting votes, but AI and machine-assisted systems are already touching elections before ballots are counted, including information voters receive, and how their signatures are reviewed. In 2024, X’s Grok chatbot gave users false information about ballot deadlines; after election officials from five states complained, X changed Grok so election-related questions directed users to Vote.gov, the federal government’s official voting information website. In North Carolina, 10 counties piloted automated signature-verification software for absentee-by-mail ballots in 2024. The pilot did not affect whether any ballot was counted, but later reporting found reliability problems: The software failed to match about 11% of signatures, most software-flagged signatures were approved after human review, and technical issues complicated the test. Neither example is the same as artificial intelligence counting votes, but both show how software can shape what voters are told or what happens before a ballot enters the count.
I have seen the problem in my own research. AI systems can cite studies that do not exist, with titles, authors, and journals that look real until you check them. A 2026 Nature analysis warned that hallucinated citations are polluting scientific literature, and OpenAI researchers have warned that some training and evaluation systems reward guessing over acknowledging uncertainty. A system that gives a confident answer may look more useful, even when that confidence is misplaced, than one that says, “I don’t know.”
That matters because elections often turn on ballot conditions that are not immediately machine readable and need human review: stray marks, undervotes, overvotes, damaged ballots, or ambiguous voter intent. In races where the margin between the candidates is narrow, a few disputed ballots can change the result. These questions should not be resolved by a system whose rules, error rates, or decision process the public cannot understand or meaningfully examine. They should be handled through documented procedures, human review, paper records, and public audits.
Human counting is also imperfect. But precisely because humans are fallible, democratic systems have developed safeguards such as paper ballots, bipartisan observation, chain-of-custody rules, cure processes, recounts, and post-election audits. Risk-limiting audits, for example, hand check samples of paper ballots and can trigger a fuller count if the sample does not support the reported result. Colorado was the first state to conduct a statewide risk-limiting audit in 2017; today, all Colorado counties conduct one before results are certified. Other states have since adopted, required, or piloted risk-limiting audits.
The best election systems do not ask voters to trust either a person or a machine. They produce evidence. That is where current policy is behind the curve. States have moved quickly to regulate AI-generated deepfakes in campaign communications, because fake videos and robocalls can mislead voters. But far less attention has been paid to the AI inside election administration itself. That gap should close before AI moves deeper into election administration, especially into decisions that could affect whether a ballot is accepted, cured, rejected, or counted.
Federal and state governments should establish clear standards for AI used in anything election related. The Brennan Center for Justice has called for such safeguards around quality, transparency, consistency, certification, and monitoring. Election offices should have to explain to the public what an AI system does, who checks it, and how voters can verify the evidence. AI systems whose rules, error rates, or decision process the public cannot understand or meaningfully examine should not make final decisions about whether a ballot counts.
Voters have a role, too. Ask your local election officials whether AI tools are being used anywhere in election administration and how those decisions can be audited. Ask how voters will know if the AI setup gets something wrong. And volunteer as a poll worker. You don't need a background in elections; local officials train you. Democracy needs more people who understand how ballots are handled, checked, and verified.
AI may soon be able to produce election results in seconds. That does not mean it should. The labor of democracy is not a bottleneck in need of streamlining. It is part of the safeguard.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy