5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Capitulation to Trump Is a Losing Strategy, Again
Nine Big Law firms that paid a large sum of money and met demands for supposed peace with the Trump administration now find themselves the subject of DOJ subpoenas.
Jul 25, 2026
In an early victory for President Donald Trump’s protection racket, the leaders of nine prestigious Big Law firms collectively paid almost $1 billion and sacrificed their professional integrity to secure peace with his administration—or so they thought.
They were wrong.
The ABA Defends the Profession
In June 2025, the American Bar Association (ABA) sued the Trump administration for targeting those firms and five others. The ABA claims that Trump has sought to intimidate attorneys from representing clients and causes that he didn’t like.
After a federal judge denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the ABA’s complaint in April, the ABA subpoenaed the files of Trump adviser Boris Ephsteyn, a key liaison in negotiating settlements between the nine capitulating firms and the White House. The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the confidentiality of presidential communications is a constitutional safeguard.
Among the problems with the government’s position are that:
- Ephsteyn is a personal senior counsel to Trump;
- He has no official position in the White House or the administration; and
- Trump has not asserted executive privilege.
The dispute may well land in the US Supreme Court, which has become Trump’s preferred forum.
The Justice Department Opens a New Front in Trump’s Continuing War
On July 2, the DOJ took a step that seemed odd: It served subpoenas on the nine capitulating firms, as well as four firms that fought Trump’s executive order and won. (It also subpoenaed a firm that took no public action.) Those subpoenas sought some of the same information that the ABA wanted from Ephsteyn:
All communications on or after January 20, 2025 that [each firm] sent to Boris Epshteyn, received from Boris Epshteyn, or participated in with Boris Epshteyn.
They also sought all communications relating to the negotiations, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of the agreements.
Presumably the Justice Department already has access to the law firms’ communications with Ephsteyn. If so, why did it subpoena the firms for some of the same material, including documents that it didn’t want the White House to provide in response to the ABA’s subpoena?
Possible answers:
- The DOJ wants the 14 subpoenaed firms to pressure the ABA into withdrawing its subpoena seeking Ephsteyn’s files. If so, it has misread the room badly. In April, the ABA filed an amicus brief with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of its 400,000 members supporting the four law firms that successfully challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders. The ABA isn’t going to save the capitulating Big Law firms from themselves.
- The department doesn’t trust Ephsteyn or the White House to provide it with all relevant materials that Ephsteyn has.
- The subpoenas were a predicate for the DOJ’s next move: trying to disqualify the ABA’s outside counsel—Susman Godfrey, one of the four big firms that won court challenges to Trump’s executive orders.
The Justice Department Tries to Avoid the Plain Language of the Applicable Rule
On July 17, the DOJ moved to disqualify Susman Godfrey from representing the ABA. It relies on the governing District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically, Rule 3.7, which states: “A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness….” [Emphasis supplied]
The Justice Department argues that the rule “contains a bright line rule prohibiting a lawyer from serving as both advocate and fact witness in the same matter….”
Not quite.
First, Rule 3.7 does not apply to all “fact witnesses.” It applies only to necessary witnesses. Susman Godfrey lawyers have become potential witnesses only because the DOJ subpoenaed documents from the firm as a whole.
Second, the rule applies only to individual lawyers within a law firm and, except in special circumstances inapplicable to the ABA case, not to all members of an entire firm. The DOJ has sought to depose as potential witnesses only the chairpersons of the 14 firms.
Third, the rule focuses on the interests of the client (here, the ABA), not its opponent (the White House). As the official commentary to Rule 3.7 explains: “If the only reason for not permitting a lawyer to combine the roles of advocate and witness is possible prejudice to the opposing party [the White House], there is no reason to disqualify other lawyers in the testifying lawyer’s firm from acting as advocates in that trial.”
Finally, the rule bars only an advocate who is likely to be a necessary witness at trial. The case may never reach the trial stage, and Susman Godfrey is free to represent the ABA until it does. Since 1992, DC Bar Ethics Opinion 228 has made that clear.
Meanwhile, the nine capitulating firms now face a quandary: What does Trump want from them? If they comply with the DOJ’s subpoenas, they will disclose some of the very information that the Justice Department is trying block by objecting to the ABA’s subpoena.
Regardless of the DOJ’s motivations, federal judges do not take kindly to an advocate’s misreading of the governing law or ignoring precedent that cuts against its position.
Here’s the real kicker: The subpoenas to Susman Godfrey and its fellow resisting law firms have already backfired. They are more evidence supporting the ABA’s claims of presidential intimidation and harassment.
As for the nine firms that settled—and the many other institutions that have that capitulated to Trump—the entire episode demonstrates that appeasing a bully will never produce finality.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Picturing Armageddon: US Government Responses to Nuclear War Movies
A feature film based on Annie Jacobson’s terrifying non-fiction book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, is now in pre-production with Dune director Denis Villeneuve at the helm. Looking back at how previous films about nuclear Armageddon have been received may give us a glimpse of how the current administration will respond to it.
Jul 25, 2026
In the recent Netflix movie, A House of Dynamite, an intercontinental ballistic missile of unknown origin is detected streaking across the Pacific on a course that, in less than 20 minutes, will turn Chicago to ash. Efforts to shoot the missile down fail, as the ground-based interceptors, or GBIs, miss their target and, as the seconds count down, the president, played by Idris Elba, has only seven minutes to decide how to respond. The consequences of his decision, which the film leaves open, could mean the end of human civilization and even most life on Earth.
What was the official response to the film? A week before it streamed, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) produced a memo attacking the film’s credibility. America’s GBIs, they said, are much more accurate than portrayed in the movie, with a 100% success rate. (The Center for Arms control puts that figure at 55% in carefully controlled tests.) And an article published by the West Point-based Modern War Institute argues that the film’s premise is flawed since no adversary would launch just a single missile at the United States.
It was also judged illogical that the president’s choices were limited to “surrender” or “suicide”—the latter meaning all-out nuclear war. The country could absorb the loss (meaning the 10 million inhabitants of Chicago) and respond only after the missile’s source had been determined. Finally, as the MDA memo helpfully pointed out, the plot of A House of Dynamite is “fictional” and “intended for the entertainment of the audience.” In other words, it’s just another disaster movie.
These themes are not new to governmental pronouncements on films about nuclear war. In the 1959 feature On the Beach, Gregory Peck plays the captain of a submarine that is America’s last surviving naval vessel as it docks in Melbourne, Australia after the entire Northern Hemisphere has been wiped out in a nuclear war—and a cloud of deadly radioactive fallout is inexorably making its way south. After a brief stay and with the inevitability of death by radiation poisoning, the crew votes to return to the US and die at home.
Which way will the Trump administration go in response to Nuclear War: A Scenario the movie? If the film is faithful to the book, it should have an even more devastating impact than The Day After.
Two weeks before the film’s worldwide release, the United States Information Agency produced an “Infoguide” stating that the film was “highly fictionalized and contains scientific inaccuracies.” It argued that, because fallout diminishes rapidly, it would only affect countries directly attacked or those nearby. Moreover, shelters and decontamination measures were effective against fallout and, as far away as the Southern Hemisphere, “if any protection at all were needed, an ordinary basement would suffice.” A later Infoguide reporting on the premier noted: “Most critics review [the] film as pure drama and there has been little emphasis on social and political significance.” In other words, no big deal.
Five years later, in 1964, Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, starring Peters Sellers in three different roles, was released. In this dark comedy, a psychotic Air Force General orders the B-52 bombers under his command to attack the Soviet Union, sparking a concerted but unsuccessful effort by the president and his advisers to recall the planes. As a single B-52 gets through and the plane’s pilot rides a nuclear bomb down to its target, it is revealed that the Soviets have a yet-to-be announced “Doomsday Machine” that, upon the country being struck by a nuclear weapon, will automatically trigger the detonation of a massive array of cobalt bombs whose radiation will render the Earth uninhabitable for a century.
Although obviously a farce, the film was panned as “juvenile, offensive, and inaccurate.” As reported in The New Yorker: “An expert at the Institute for Strategic Studies called the events in the film ‘impossible on a dozen counts.’ A former Deputy Secretary of Defense dismissed the idea that someone could authorize the use of a nuclear weapon without the President’s approval: ‘Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.’” (These assertions are in doubt following the disclosure of the policy of “pre-delegation,” in force at the time, which gave authority to commanders to deploy nuclear weapons in circumstances where the president could not be reached.)
Two decades later, in the feature film Wargames, Matthew Broderick plays a teenager who successfully hacks into the Pentagon’s supercomputer. Unwittingly, he mistakes its nuclear war command and control function for a computer game—and nearly triggers global thermonuclear war.
This time, the government response was quite different. After viewing the film, President Ronald Reagan asked his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if something like that could really happen. After a review, the president was told that, not only was the premise of the film realistic, “the problem is much worse than you think.” Fifteen months later, National Security Directive NSD-145 was issued, launching a sweeping governmental effort to improve cybersecurity.
Later in 1983, the television movie The Day After, which reached a record-breaking 100 million viewers, was the first American film to attempt a realistic depiction of the aftermath of a nuclear attack on an American city. The story revolves around a doctor, played by Jason Robards, as he tries to deal with the horrific effects of blast, fire, and radiation on the citizens of Lawrence, Kansas—targeted because of its nearby nuclear missile silos.
In this case, the response was mixed. The White House initially discouraged the making of the film. The Pentagon urged—unsuccessfully—to have the script make clear that the Soviets fired first and later refused to allow the filmmakers to use stock footage of real nuclear detonations. Henry Kissinger criticized the film as “simple minded” and in danger of leading the country to “make policy by scaring ourselves to death.” But the film’s graphic portrayal of the effects on the population of an American city could not be dismissed as easily as some of its predecessors, and Reagan wrote in his diary, “It’s very effective & left me greatly depressed.” It has been argued that the film influenced him to soften his Cold War rhetoric and to meet with Mikhael Gorbachev in Iceland in 1986, where the complete abolition of nuclear weapons was discussed. Unfortunately, that meeting ended without agreement; however, a year later, subsequent negotiations led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which resulted in the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons.
Which way will the Trump administration go in response to Nuclear War: A Scenario the movie? If the film is faithful to the book, it should have an even more devastating impact than The Day After. With today’s sophisticated special effects, it will, no doubt, create hyperrealistic imagery and make the absolute absurdity of nuclear war manifest. But will the administration call it unrealistic, inaccurate, alarmist or just fiction, as with On the Beach, Doctor Strangelove, or A House of Dynamite? Or will they see it as a prompt to take this existential threat seriously and move to reduce or eliminate the world’s nuclear stockpiles?
Regardless of the response, the movie should motivate us all to work to build a constituency for change in order to end the madness and build a saner world.
Keep Reading
Show Less
As We Choke and Sweat, Big Oil Is Trying to Buy Its Way Out of Accountability
Fossil fuel-funded lawmakers have introduced legislation that would dismiss ongoing climate damages lawsuits, shield the industry from similar future cases, pre-empt state Climate Superfund laws, and block any state level regulation of greenhouse gases.
Jul 25, 2026
The 2026 heatwave is a global phenomenon, inflicting extreme temperatures on billions of people from the United States to Europe and South Asia.
Extreme heat is deadly. In Europe, an estimated 10,000 people have died from heat this summer, and the official count of a few dozen deaths in India and Pakistan is likely to be too low by several orders of magnitude, according to a recent scientific study.
Dozens of Americans died from heat over the Fourth of July weekend alone—a toll that’s still unacceptably high.
Meanwhile, much of the country has been blanketed in smoke from wildfires in Canada and Minnesota, triggered by the hot and dry conditions arising from the heatwaves. Like heat, wildfire smoke is also deadly. A similar wildfire smoke event in 2023 led to an estimated 33,000 premature deaths in the US alone.
Effectively, these legislators—like too many others—were bought by a powerful industry to put their corporate interests over the health, and the very lives, of the broader public. This is naked corruption.
Scientists have found that all of these regional heatwaves were made likelier and more severe because of human-caused climate change, mainly attributable to burning fossil fuels.
Major oil and gas corporations have known for decades that their business model would cause disasters like these. Their response was to minimize or even hide their findings to keep the public in the dark about the risks—and pay front groups to deceive them.
This drive to preserve profits at the expense of humanity has understandably caused outrage. Eleven US states, two tribes, and dozens of local governments are suing fossil fuel corporations for damages for the harm they’ve suffered from climate disasters.
State legislators have also joined the fray. New York and Vermont have passed “Climate Superfund” bills that require fossil fuel corporations to pay for economic losses arising from extreme heat, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and flooding. Similar laws are being considered in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
The US has experienced more than $200 billion in climate damages every year since 2016, and it’s only fair that fossil fuel corporations pay for some of the damage caused by their reckless greed.
But instead of trying to make Big Oil pay up, some lawmakers in Congress are trying to do the opposite. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have introduced House and Senate bills, respectively, that seek to dismiss ongoing climate damages lawsuits, shield Big Oil from similar future cases, pre-empt state Climate Superfund laws, and—most outrageously—block any state level regulation of greenhouse gases.
This is legislation expressly designed to protect a powerful, wealthy industry from having to face any accountability for harming the public. And when you follow the money, you can see why.
Rep. Hageman has received more than $23,000 in campaign money from the petroleum refining and marketing industry in this cycle, making it the second biggest industry (after sugar) backing her candidacy. She’s also received thousands more from other fossil fuel interests.
Also in this cycle alone, Sen. Cruz has gotten more than $129,000 in contributions from different segments of the oil and gas industry.
Effectively, these legislators—like too many others—were bought by a powerful industry to put their corporate interests over the health, and the very lives, of the broader public. This is naked corruption.
And if we want the kind of democracy we need and deserve, the rest of us shouldn’t tolerate it anymore.
Keep Reading
Show Less
When Parents Got Loud, Newsom Had to Listen, But More Still Must Be Done
Funding childcare is the difference between realized dreams and delayed futures.
Jul 25, 2026
By Marilynda Bustamente and Carmen Perez
As California's final state budget has been signed and Gov. Gavin Newsom prepares to leave office, we can’t help but look at the impact of childcare funding on families. To build a future, we must look at the present and past.
Ours is a tale of two families. We are both mothers and parent leaders with Parent Voices—Carmen in Marin and Marilynda in Los Angeles. This year, we both attended the 30th annual Parent Voices CA Stand for Children Day, where we joined hundreds of parents, children, and childcare providers to say something simple and urgent: Children matter. Together, we testified at the State Capitol until the final lap to the signing of the final state budget—to remind lawmakers: Superheroes Choose Kids, Not Billionaires!
We are similar in so many ways, but when it comes to access to childcare, we learned there is a disconnect in state policy across counties.
Imagine a state where every child has access to care from birth, where no parent has to choose between working and staying home, and where no child spends years on a waiting list.
I, Marilynda, was living in a homeless shelter when I was pregnant with my first child. I was fortunate to get off the waiting list for a childcare voucher. Because of that, I was able to get through graduate school, work, hold an internship, and earn my Master of Social Work. My daughter, Serenity, is learning, socializing, and growing, and we wouldn’t be where we are without that childcare.
I, Carmen, saw my oldest son age out of eligibility for a childcare voucher after more than 10 years stuck on the childcare waitlist. Years later, my two daughters gained access to childcare when Newsom added new childcare spaces, and today they are thriving. But now, my youngest son, Dyson, is stuck on the waitlist because the state has not expanded childcare since 2023. I don’t have reliable care for him; I can’t work more hours because I can’t leave him, which hurts my ability to provide for my family.
Our stories make it clear: Funding childcare is the difference between realized dreams and delayed futures. No childcare means lost wages for many California families.
Newsom once recognized that waiting is a policy failure. He made a promise to expand childcare, and that promise gave families hope. But then the promise was delayed. Newsom's May revision of the state budget did not provide enough to reach 200,000 new childcare spaces. It will leave more than 77,000 families remaining on what is now known as the "No Hope” childcare waitlist.
So, we advocated. We put pressure on Gov. Newsom to get closer to fulfilling his promise to childcare. He announced 130,000 childcare spaces, much closer to the 200,000 than originally proposed.
Compromises were made. But more must be done when there are thousands of eligible children stuck on the “No Hope” waitlist.
We teach our kids to keep their word. Why should we expect anything less from our governor?
At the same time, childcare educators will receive a 2% cost of living adjustment while TK-12 teachers get 4.31%. The first five years of a child's development are among the most critical, yet the educators who show up for those years are already the lowest paid and getting less than half the investment. That’s a reminder that childcare providers continue to be disrespected in budget decisions.
We have to ask a hard question: What kind of world are we building for our children?
Imagine if the billions lost to incarceration and tax cuts for corporations were invested in universal childcare instead.
Implementing universal childcare and properly supporting the industry is the solution to the affordability crisis. It unlocks opportunities for parents like us to work, pursue education, pay bills, and afford essentials like gas and food. If care becomes available for every family, the future will brighten for all families.
Imagine a state where every child has access to care from birth, where no parent has to choose between working and staying home, and where no child spends years on a waiting list.
This is not out of reach. It is about priorities.
The State has the money. But the commitment to invest in childcare has fallen short.
Will the next governor get closer to fulfilling the promise to fund childcare for all families?
Keep Reading
Show Less
Lessons from Past Activist Leaders for Today’s Fights for Health and Social Justice
As the Trump administration’s crusade against democracy and our nation’s public health and healthcare systems continue, we can learn from the lives of Denise Oliver-Velez and Walt Odets.
Jul 24, 2026
Two recent deaths highlighted the importance of earlier activist leaders to struggles for health and social justice. Denise Oliver-Velez, who died on July 15, was a founder of the Young Lords Party in New York, a group that mobilized Puerto Rican and other communities to fight for their health and dignity. She also helped set the stage for alignments between movements for the rights of people of color and those focused on the rights of women.
Walt Odets, a psychologist, died on July 5th in Berkeley where he had provided therapy for gay men for decades. His activism had focused on how best to prevent AIDS and ending the stigma that this country imposes on LGBTQI people.
Their stories remind us of the important role activists play in combating injustice and reversing cruel and harmful policies. As the Trump administration’s crusade against democracy and our nation’s public health and healthcare systems continue, we can learn from these two lives lessons for today’s activists who can bring the values and passions of Oliver-Velez and Odets into the present period.
Through the campaigns she helped to organize, Oliver-Velez brought to life an alternative vision of a healthcare system that put serving people first. In 1970, the Young Lords occupied Lincoln Hospital, an underfunded, understaffed public hospital with decaying facilities and low quality of care, known in the community as the Butcher Shop. The Young Lords sent members into the hospital lobby to collect complaints from patients, which they then presented to hospital administrators. When conditions did not improve, the group occupied the hospital, winning an agreement to hire more Puerto Rican doctors committed to serving their community and to support the Lords to set up new community health and substance use programs. At a time when the city was closing public hospitals to save money, Lincoln was rebuilt and a new modern hospital was opened, in part due to persistent pressure from the Young Lords and their healthcare worker allies.
Between them, these two very different activist leaders demonstrated some of the qualities today’s activists most need to fight current threats to health and social justice.
Oliver-Velez was attracted to the Lords because they were “a puente,” a “bridge between groups, the cultural/nationalists, the Marxists, the whites, the Black and the Asians.” She also wanted to overcome the machismo that divided so many radical groups. She wrote that she and other women in the Lords “made it very clear that we were not going to be just secretaries, that we were warriors too.” Oliver, Iris Morales, and other women leaders in the Young Lords organized a Women’s Caucus which moved the Young Lords Party to adopt feminist principles as central to their political agenda.
These women led campaigns on reproductive justice; against sterilization abuse; for safe, legal abortion; and raised awareness about the institutional oppression of women. Much of their work focused on health—breakfast programs for school children, a campaign to force the city to combat lead poisoning more aggressively, and the fights to improve Lincoln Hospital. Decades before “health for all” became an international rallying call, the Young Lords showed how ordinary people can force government to translate this aspiration into action.
Odets’ practice and tactics were different. He criticized the gay movement’s approach to AIDS prevention, arguing that its guidance on safe sex was ambiguous and failed to prevent infection. He insisted movements had to tell the truth about evidence. He also championed the needs of HIV-negative men, arguing that a movement seeking health for the gay community as a whole at had to consider the needs of these men, even if their lives were not in as imminent peril as those who were HIV+.
“For gay lives,” Odets wrote “the granting of legal rights and authentic acceptance are two different issues in a society steeped in phobic aversion to real diversity.” Odets distinguished between the legal fight for societal recognition, i.e., gay marriage, and the psychological fight for self-acceptance and the rejection of social stigma. He hoped to engage the gay community in addressing both the political and emotional requirement for building solidarity and to prepare gay men to both fight for their rights and insist on their self-worth. Rather than separating these two domains, he strove to integrate them.
Between them, these two very different activist leaders demonstrated some of the qualities today’s activists most need to fight current threats to health and social justice. Both found ways to connect their personal experience to their political beliefs, a prerequisite for authenticity in organizing others.
Oliver-Velez showed the power of bringing people together across the racial-ethnic and gender divides that characterize our society and enable those in power to divide us. Odets emphasized the importance of paying attention to both the political and the psychological dimensions of activism. Activists who appeal to the mind and the heart are more likely to build the long-term support needed to change policies and systems.
Both were willing to acknowledge differences among activists, then look for ways to bridge these divides . Neither Oliver-Velez nor Odets feared conflict, but they did not demonize fellow travelers who disagreed with them, leaving the door open to build bridges.
I have been studying, teaching, writing about, and participating in health activism for more than 50 years. Never have the threats to human and planetary health seemed starker. Never has the responsibility of government to protect health been under such concerted attack. Fortunately, thousands of young and old activists are organizing to combat today’s threats, showing the possibility of an alternative to the dark and cruel view of well-being coming from leaders in Washington. By applying the lessons learned from Oliver-Velez and Odets to today’s battles, we pay tribute to them by strengthening the fights for a healthier, more just world.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Backsliding on Climate Could Cost Not Only Elections But Lives
Economic populism goes hand in hand with a clean energy transition.
Jul 24, 2026
Temperatures are soaring globally, and wildfire smoke just blanketed much of North America for the second time in a few years. This summer’s heat will likely make this year the hottest ever, and that heat is costing lives. It’s no surprise that concern about climate change among Americans is at one of its highest points since 1989.
But despite the fact that climate change and extreme heat are posing a threat to the health and well-being of Americans, neither major party is offering a serious policy response.
Republicans have become the official party of climate change denial. The Trump administration and its GOP allies in Congress have aggressively attacked renewable energy while boosting fossil fuels. Meanwhile many Democrats have become increasingly silent about climate, leaving voters concerned about the issue with no major political party to represent their values and interests.
In fact, The New York Times recently found that many Democratic candidates are backtracking on their previous opposition to the oil and gas industries. “With voters worried about spiking gas prices and inflation, some of the party’s leaders argue that they should stop trying to throttle oil and gas, which heat the planet when burned,” the paper reported.
Voters recognize that public investments in clean energy, public transit, and other climate-friendly policies ultimately save them money.
This messaging could cost lives and elections.
As a young voter, I saw this sense of abandonment play out in real time. I remember walking proudly around my campus all day in 2024 wearing an “I voted” sticker. I had voted early by mail, as had many of my classmates—or so I thought. What I came to realize throughout the day was that many of my classmates had yet to vote—and had no plan to.
Voting can be time consuming, frustrating, and often unnecessarily complicated. Barriers to voting are even more intimidating when you’re voting for the first time. For these reasons and more, many young people only make the effort to vote if they feel candidates will strongly advocate for the issues they care about.
On my campus, students are given access to all kinds of information about how and why to vote, and they’re given ample time and opportunity to do so. If students with access to so many resources on voting aren’t voting, how can we expect young people in parts of the country where there are larger barriers to voting to turn out en masse?
Over half of voters aged 18-29 didn’t vote in the 2024 presidential election, and 77% of young voters didn’t vote in the 2022 midterms. The 2026 midterm races are already tight, which could make the failure to address climate change a recipe for political as well as ecological disaster.
There’s no contradiction between having a serious climate policy and being responsive to voter concerns about rising costs. Progressive populists like Zohran Mamdani in New York, Janeese Lewis George in Washington, DC, and Melat Kiros in Denver, among others, have all proven that climate-friendly economic populism can be effective at increasing voter turnout, especially among young people.
Economic populism goes hand in hand with a transition to green energy, as 90% of renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels. Voters recognize that public investments in clean energy, public transit, and other climate-friendly policies ultimately save them money.
In New York, one of Mamdani’s core promises—Free, Fast Buses—was proof of this. In DC, a core component of Lewis George’s campaign was affordable energy for all, with a focus on expanding community and government solar to cut electric bills. In Denver, Kiros also campaigned on combining economic and environmental issues with her support of a Green New Deal.
These recent victories owed much to the young people who powered their campaigns. It was also overwhelmingly young people who organized the 75,000 person March To End Fossil Fuels in 2023 and organized 500,000 people around the US against fossil fuels in 2019.
These examples suggest young people aren’t apathetic—they’re just not being heard. They will power campaigns that support a transition to green energy. But they won’t make an effort for those who enable the fossil fuel industry or talk out of both sides of their mouths on the issue.
Now is the time to push for a future with cheaper, greener energy for all. It is not the time to backslide on fossil fuels.
Keep Reading
Show Less
If the Senate Confirms Todd Blanche, It Will Change Our Lives for the Worse
As deputy attorney general and acting attorney general, he’s turned the Justice Department into Trump’s personal favor factory; instead of protecting our rights, he’s lining Trump’s pocket, protecting his personal interests, and carrying out his revenge fantasies.
Jul 24, 2026
It’s summer in Washington, DC, but members of the Senate aren’t focused on beaches, hikes, and picnics. Instead, they’re focused on President Donad Trump’s nomination of Todd Blanche to run the Justice Department as attorney general.
It’s a fight worth paying attention to, because it will affect what kind of country we live in.
Attorneys general can change our lives for the better. In the 1960s, Robert Kennedy worked tirelessly to bring civil rights to the South and to dismantle organized crime. In the 1970s, Elliot Richardson resigned rather than carry out President Richard Nixon’s illegal order to fire the special Watergate prosecutor.
Todd Blanche is about as far as you can get from either of them. How do we know? Because as deputy attorney general and acting attorney general, he’s turned the Justice Department into Trump’s personal favor factory. Instead of protecting our rights, he’s lining Trump’s pocket, protecting his personal interests, and carrying out his revenge fantasies.
He has shown how much he is willing to bend the law to line Trump’s pockets.
Blanche was the one who pushed for the $1.8 billion “weaponization” fund that would have allowed taxpayer funds to be doled out, with very little public oversight, to anyone claiming that they’d been victims of the “weaponization” of justice. It looked like a slush fund for insurrectionists and other Trump allies, including those who assaulted police officers on January 6, 2021.
Some Republican senators apparently want assurances that this scheme is dead before they vote for Blanche. But even genuine assurances don’t matter. Blanche still pushed for this corrupt money laundering operation. Giving it up under torrential pressure doesn’t show that he has good judgment and can be trusted with immense power.
The same applies for another scheme Blanche proposed at the same time as the slush fund: An agreement to end a longtime audit of Trump’s taxes (possibly saving Trump $100 million) and a gift of immunity for the president and his associates from future liability for civil or criminal liability for anything they may have done up to that point.
Again, this is about as corrupt as you can get. And again, even if Blanche were to toss the idea in the shredder, it would be too late: He has shown how much he is willing to bend the law to line Trump’s pockets.
Blanche has also transformed the Justice Department into a partisan tool to go after Trump’s enemies. For instance, he’s launched a criminal prosecution against former FBI Director James Comey for posting a photo of seashells spelling out “86 47.” It will never stand up in court, but that’s not the point. The point is to harass Comey and, perhaps more importantly, intimidate other Trump critics from speaking out. It is an unacceptable abuse of power.
Then there are the Epstein files. Before Congress ordered the files released, Blanche was coming up with ideas to make it look like the administration was being open with the records when they really weren’t. He met with Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving time for her role in sex trafficking for Epstein. Afterward, she got moved to a minimum-security prison, prompting a lot of questions about the deal they may have made.
Then late last year Congress ordered the files to be released, and Blanche was put in charge of making that happen. In February, media reports revealed that the Justice Department had unlawfully withheld multiple Epstein files containing allegations against President Trump. And just a few weeks ago, a federal judge held that Blanche had still not complied with the law.
It’s no surprise that Epstein survivors are urging the Senate not to confirm him.
This country is on the wrong path. Confirming Todd Blanche as attorney general will help Donald Trump’s bottom line. But it won’t do any good for the rest of us.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Socks It to the World
From the Iran War to the World Cup, President Donald Trump follows his destructive urges.
Jul 24, 2026
I want to play sockhim (oh, sorry, sockher) for President Donald Trump. In our world today, there’s nothing, it seems, he can’t fiddle with or kick around or, for that matter, sock. And whenever he feels it’s necessary (or simply has the urge to do so), he’s always been willing to sockthem, whoever they might be. If something then goes wrong, as with Iran and the global economy right now, thanks to his wild and wildly destructive acts, so what? He’s still Donald Trump and can do the equivalent again somewhere else in some other way the next second-minute-hour-day-week-month-year.
I’m thinking, of course, not just about his unbearable urge to bomb Iran for the 940th (9,400th?) time, as oil and gas prices surge once again, but about his relatively recent intervention in the soccer World Cup to ensure that one of the best players on the US team, who had committed a foul, was red-carded off the field by a referee, and then was denied permission to play in the next game against the Belgian team, could instead compete in that very game. And of course, since everything You Know Who does is headlined, you know just what happened next: The World Cup organization, FIFA, gave way instantly, that player was indeed in the next game, and the US team still lost to Belgium by a significant margin.
And Donald J. Trump just rolled right on. No matter what goes wrong, he never loses. (If you think otherwise, ask him and you’ll find out that you couldn’t be more off base!)
I sometimes try to imagine telling my parents, who died deep in the last century, about “our” president. The only way I could do so, I suspect, would be by comparing him to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the Donald Trump of the early 1950s, who claimed that his opponents were “commies” and, in a distinctly Trumpian fashion, swore that he had a (fictional) list of 205 State Department employees who were members of the American Communist Party and later that the US Army, too, had been infiltrated by commies. His charges would be the focus of the 1954 televised Army-McCarthy Hearings, which did me the great favor (at age 10) of putting a television set in our apartment for the first time so that my mom, Irma Selz, then a well-known political and theatrical caricaturist, could draw McCarthy and crew for the New York Post.
At a time when this planet of ours needed rescuing (from us, of course), the American people reelected a man who continues to openly promise to send us—all too literally—to the blazes.
And yes, he was an all-American monster, distinctly clobbering various figures and destroying certain American lives. Still, in the end, he was condemned by the Senate and essentially drank himself to death, only affecting our all-American world for a few years and (at least in comparison with You Know Who) in a relatively modest way.
Historically speaking, Donald Trump, president (no less!) of the United States of America twice, puts him to shame. Of course, once upon a time (believe it or not), Joseph McCarthy and Donald Trump had the very same adviser (at different moments, of course), Roy Cohn, who, in the (all too literal) end, may have helped create a president from beyond the grave.
McCarthy only had a relatively brief moment at center stage before falling apart in a big-time fashion. Donald Trump, on the other hand, simply goes on and on and (yes!) on, whacking away at so many of the rest of us—Iran being at the top of his list, right now—day after day, week after week, year after year, while our world begins to disintegrate under us. (Oh, sorry, my mistake even to refer in passing to climate change when “our” president considers it a first-class “con job“!)
Joe McCarthy was functionally ejected from his political world and then essentially ejected himself from ours. Unfortunately, Donald Trump took our world by storm, two (out of three) times, while tossing out so many others in the process. And now, at least in climate terms, he seems intent on ejecting us all from Planet Earth.
“We Have a Score to Settle”
If I had told you his tale early in this century, you would never have believed me. In fact, you would have thought me an idiot and a half (maybe even three-quarters). Donald Trump, the president of the United States (at least) twice and so many others of us his apprentices? You must be kidding! Once upon a time, that would have seemed beyond inconceivable for even a second, no less at least eight years. You simply wouldn’t have believed that so much of the Republican Party (and all too many other Americans) would ever have become Trumpublicans.
Under the circumstances, can there be any question that we now live in an upside-down, gloom-and-doom version of a fairy-tale world? Why, just as I was writing this, President Trump decided to launch a new series of air strikes against Iran (yes, Iran!), claiming that “we have a score to settle.” And he’s certainly a big-time score-settler, though who really knows what he’s doing or why—probably not even him. He just seems to get the urge to sockittothem and we’re off to the races.
Isn’t it strange that the man who, once upon a time, wrote The Art of the Deal can’t quite seem to imagine making a deal with anyone anymore? Actually, as he said recently when it comes to Iran: “We’re going to have a deal. We may just do it without a deal, because you know what, it’s easier.” Perhaps he should now change the title of his book to The Art of Doing Without a Deal.
And, of course, that shouldn’t be surprising when the people he’s dealing with there are, as he put it recently, “scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people,” He summed things up this way when it comes to Iran, “Far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them. They’re liars… there’s something wrong with them. They’re cuckoo. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.” (No matter at all that, only weeks earlier, he had praised them as “very rational people,” “nice to deal with.”)
And what do you do when you’re dealing with sick scum? You bomb the crap out of them. Or, to put it in sports terms, you sockthem to hell.
At a time when this planet of ours needed rescuing (from us, of course), the American people reelected a man who continues to openly promise to send us—all too literally—to the blazes. He’s simply hot, hot, hot, the very word he used for Trumpian rapper and “White House Barbi” Nicki Minaj. (”We also have a woman that is so respected and so hot and so great and such a great friend of, I don’t say conservative, I say of common sense.”)
You, of course, could say the very same thing about Donald J. Trump. He’s so hot, and the one thing he seems determined to do on this overheating planet of ours is heat ever more of it (which war, of course, accomplishes in a particularly striking fashion).
So, here we all are with a president determined to play sockher, sockhim, sockthem, and sockplanetEarth for at least another two and a half years. And where will we all be then? Sockme if I know?
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump's Deadly, Cruel Immigration Policy May Be a Political Failure As Well
As more information comes out about lives lost, communities harmed, and an economy hobbled by the loss of critical workers, previously supportive voters may turn against Trump's mass deportation agenda.
Jul 24, 2026
The Trump administration is doing everything it can to get rid of what it considers to be “undesirable” people.
The administration has removed temporary protected status (TPS) for more than a million people from over a dozen countries. It is sending people back to active war zones in Sudan and Somalia. It is deporting people to Myanmar, a country under a military dictatorship. In the case of Venezuela, it is returning people to a country struggling to deal with the aftereffects of an earthquake.
Some holders of this status have been in the country for a long time. Nearly 90% of the 170,000 Salvadorans who have TPS, first granted 25 years ago, participate in the US labor force, contributing over US$5 billion to the US economy.
The administration makes no exceptions in its campaign to deport anyone and everyone. Even as it has promised to fight a war on behalf of the people of Iran, it has reportedly provided information about Iranian asylum-seekers to the Iranian government. These details about their lives, such as their sexual orientation and religious beliefs, make it even more likely that they will be persecuted on return. Dozens of Russians, who don’t enjoy TPS, were flown back to Russia, where several were immediately slapped with draft notices.
The administration has tried to tout the successes of its deportation program. But the deaths of citizens and noncitizens alike have put supporters of the president on the defensive.
There is no length to which the administration won’t go to deport people, even American citizens like the children born in the United States who were kicked out of the country along with their parents. So far, the Supreme Court has blocked the administration’s attempt to overturn the “birthright citizenship” clause in the US Constitution. But President Donald Trump is still pushing his allies to take up the fight in Congress to change the law.
The administration even tried to add 2.7 million living people to the “Death Master File,” which is a database of dead people maintained by the Social Security Administration. Trump’s plan was to make life so difficult for people declared “dead” that they would self-deport or, if they showed up to dispute their “death,” to detain them in preparation for deportation. It was only because of a whistleblower that this plan didn’t go into effect.
But the most visible effort by the US government has been to target the approximately 14 million “unauthorized immigrants” who, as of 2023, constituted over 4% of the US population. Such immigrants keep the American economy afloat by picking fruit, slaughtering cows, building houses, and taking care of the elderly.
Trump’s mass deportation campaign, in other words, would wreck the US economy. The undocumented don’t take away jobs from native-born Americans because the latter generally don’t want the jobs that immigrants fill. But the administration is willing to risk economic disaster in its effort to keep America a predominantly white country.
Trump’s anti-immigrant plan has not just evicted people. It has not just locked them away in detention centers. It has killed them.
In recent weeks, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were involved in two killings. Joan Sebastian Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian national living with his wife and young daughter in a small town in Maine, was not the subject of an ICE raid, but ICE agents killed him anyway. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican immigrant, was a businessman and father of three on his way to work in Houston when agents stopped his car and shot him.
More than a dozen people have died in these kinds of interactions with ICE, including two US citizens—Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good—protesting ICE actions in Minnesota.
The number of detainees who have died in custody is even higher. Tens of thousands of people are being held in detention facilities that the Trump administration has established around the country. Despite administration claims that it is only deporting dangerous criminals, more than 70% of those detained have no prior criminal convictions.
More than 50 people have died in the detention facilities, a rate that is more than twice as high as Trump’s first term. They have died because of conditions inside the facilities or because they didn’t receive sufficient medical care. Several have died by suicide.
The Trump administration has pledged to deport a million people a year. It hasn’t quite reached that benchmark, with the administration itself claiming around 900,000 deportations as of mid-May. It has also claimed that more than 2 million people have self-deported. However, without transparent data from the Department of Homeland Security, it is difficult to verify the administration’s claims.
These numbers are critical to the administration’s approval rating. On virtually all other policies, Trump is losing popularity. Inflation numbers remain high, and the economy is failing millions of Americans. The war in Iran continues to push up gas prices. The administration is still dogged by controversies around budget cuts, corruption, anti-vaccine policies, and connections to Jeffrey Epstein. The overall approval rating for the administration is around 37%, with a large percentage of independent voters now adopting negative views of the president.
The one issue where a sizable number of Americans still approve of administration policies, however, is immigration. Compared to the economy at 33% and the war in Iran at 29%, 40% of Americans approve of his immigration policies. But even here the numbers are declining, since half of Americans supported his approach to immigration when he took office in 2025.
The administration has tried to tout the successes of its deportation program. But the deaths of citizens and noncitizens alike have put supporters of the president on the defensive. The detention and deportation of key members of communities—hard workers, religious leaders, even those espousing the same conservative family values of the administration—have led to a significant decline in anti-immigrant sentiment among Republicans.
Still, with the economy on the rocks and the war in Iran nowhere near an end, the Republicans will likely try to emphasize the “success” of the administration on immigration policy in the upcoming midterm elections in November. It will be a desperate strategy. As more information comes out about lives lost, communities harmed, and an economy hobbled by the loss of critical workers, the administration’s deportation strategy may turn out to be a failure politically as well for the president and his party.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump’s Military Spending Request Is Really Big Money
Any self-proclaimed deficit hawk who is not all hair on fire about Trump’s budget demand is a lying hypocrite who only uses concerns about the deficit to argue against programs they don’t like.
Jul 23, 2026
President Donald Trump is asking for $1,500,000 million for the military for next year. That’s close to $600 billion (adjusted for inflation) more than we were spending on the military in fiscal year 2025, before Trump took office.
This increase is huge by any measure. It comes to around $4,600 per household. It is around 8% of the total budget. This spending request dwarfs sums that are often the subject of major debates in Washington.
For example, last year Democrats pushed to have the enhanced subsidies in the Affordable Care Act exchanges extended. This would have cost $30 billion a year, one twentieth of what Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are demanding.
People may recall Elon Musk gleefully putting the US Agency for International Development into the “wood chipper” last spring. While ending this program is expected to lead to 4 million additional deaths over the next four years, it only saved around $35 billion a year. That is less than 6% of the increase in military spending that Trump is asking for.
Is the argument that in just 18 months in office, Trump has made the world so much less safe that we have to increase the defense budget by two-thirds?
The annual cost of extending the enhanced child tax credit, which cut child poverty in half, was around $100 billion a year, less than one-fifth of Trump’s proposed increase. And the annual appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was $550 million, less than one thousandth of the additional spending for the military that Trump is demanding. (It’s in the chart, just small to see.)
People need to know that Trump’s military spending request is really big money, compared to almost anything else that ever comes up for public debate for Congress. Unfortunately, because of incompetent or corrupt budget reporting, few news accounts make any effort to put these huge numbers in a context that makes them understandable for their audience. As a result, most people will probably have little idea of what is at stake with this military request.
Any self-proclaimed deficit hawk who is not all hair on fire about Trump’s budget demand is a lying hypocrite who only uses concerns about the deficit to argue against programs they don’t like. We got along fine with the former level of military spending, which almost everyone, including Donald Trump in his first term, considered adequate.
Is the argument that in just 18 months in office, Trump has made the world so much less safe that we have to increase the defense budget by two-thirds? Most of us knew that making our former allies into enemies was not a good idea, but Trump is placing a huge price tag on this mistake. And remember, this is Trump’s own number, not his critics’.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Who Wants to Be Tied to the Energy of War?
Renewable energy comes without the emissions, without the climate consequences, and without the oil wars that have plagued the last 30-plus years.
Jul 23, 2026
Renewables are not just for highfalutin hippies, they’re cheaper and avoid the volatility of wars and chaotic leaders. We are not living the 1970s oil shock moment; there are alternatives to fossil fuels. Those who embrace renewable energy will be better off—from health benefits for communities to reducing energy shock burdens for households. The reality unfolding during this latest oil war is that many nations really do not want to be tethered to volatile energy resources. And who can blame them?
With yet another peace process collapsing and conflict renewed, the Iran war will continue to create the largest disruption to oil markets since the Covid-19 pandemic. In mere months, it’s increased the costs of oil and gas, food, and everything in-between, amplifying the global cost of living crisis. We’re at the beginning of a very bumpy ride ahead.
New pipelines that would avoid the Strait of Hormuz altogether are underway. But this type of infrastructure can take up to a decade or more to come online. In the meantime, national petroleum stockpiles are at an all-time low. Governments have a limited amount of time to buoy oil prices and stave off high fuel costs. If the Strait of Hormuz does successfully open and peace is achieved, it could take years for petroleum output to stabilize back to pre-war levels, thanks to destroyed infrastructure. Liquefied natural gas and oil processing facilities have been targets for bombing by both sides—amounting to $58 billion in damages so far.
Adding to this tableau is the reality that the days of so-called "easy oil" are now in the rearview mirror. Shell CEO Wael Sawan recently forecast that oil prices will continue to rise long after peace is achieved due to a combination of energy infrastructure damages and a need to access more expensive, more environmentally risky oil reservoirs. It’s worth calling out here that we’ve already burned through enough fossil fuels to achieve 1.5°C of warming. Every year has been another record-breaking year for global warming and global climate damages to the tune of billions of dollars.
The US and Israeli war with Iran is making renewable energy more attractive, more economically competitive, and may help us achieve our global climate targets to triple renewables by 2030.
In a world where we are witnessing the climate consequences of burning fossil fuels—where renewables like wind and solar are cheaper—just why should nations continue to rely on petroleum?
Before the Iran War, renewable energy was already growing at a rapid speed. It’s now cheaper to employ solar and wind than oil and gas. Now that petroleum costs are more volatile and associated infrastructure is in duress, the pivot to renewables will be inevitable. This March in the US, renewable energy accounted for half of all energy generation. Globally, solar energy is making up the largest share of new energy projects. If oil is the energy of warmongering and dramatic cost fluctuations, perhaps renewable energy could be the energy of peace and economic security.
Spain, China, and others leading on renewable energy power generation have seen costs remain relatively stable during this time. Now other nations are seeking that same stability. Since the war started, many fossil fuel dependent nations increased their renewable energy targets to levels that exceed their national climate goals. Egypt announced a goal to increase renewable energies like wind and solar from 10% today to 45% of energy needs in just two years. This new target overshoots any climate goal Egypt has previously set during annual United Nations climate conferences. South Korea, India, and others have likewise elevated their renewable energy targets to help lessen energy cost burdens for citizens, decrease dependency on the ebbs and flows of oil and gas, and the military whims of chaotic leaders. Now Turkey and Australia are pushing for a commitment at the next UN climate conference for nations to reach 35% renewable energy use by 2035.
The path toward a renewable energy economy will not be easy. Petroleum interests are doing everything possible to wed us all to fossil fuels through a long-established playbook of climate denial, climate skepticism around emissions and renewable energy, and wielding political influence. In the US at least, those actions have paid off. The second Trump administration has been all about tying us to oil and gas. A mere $445 million in campaign contributions to the Trump presidential campaign and related political action committees gifted a windfall of deregulation and incentives to what should be a declining energy industry on the way out.
Many Biden-era renewable energy incentives have been revoked in the second Trump administration, diminishing the potential for America’s solar, battery, and wind manufacturing to compete with China. Instead, incentives and kickbacks for oil and gas companies are everywhere, from opening public lands to reducing environmental reviews and even connecting trade agreements to oil and gas. These actions have not stymied renewable energy uptake. Last year, solar overtook coal in overall global energy consumption for the first time.
While the United States is focused on controlling the energy of the past, China has been laser focused on the energy of the future. A rapid global pivot away from fossil fuels will benefit China’s burgeoning renewable energy industries the most. Today, 80% of all renewable energy—like wind, solar, and battery storage—is manufactured by Chinese companies, with US companies a faraway second at 10% of the market.
The US and Israeli war with Iran is making renewable energy more attractive, more economically competitive, and may help us achieve our global climate targets to triple renewables by 2030. The reality is no one wants to rely on economically toxic energy sources. Renewable energy comes without the emissions, without the climate consequences, and without the oil wars that have plagued the last 30-plus years. Embracing renewable energy today means being more resilient and better prepared to weather future petroleum shocks; all while helping to reduce emissions and lessen climate impacts—a win-win if ever there was one.
Keep Reading
Show 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