5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
The Time Has Come for a 'Right' to Clean Water
Green Amendments rely upon the highest legal authorities we have in the US–our state and federal constitutions–and use their placement within the Bill of Rights to make environmental rights an unquestionable, enforceable legal entitlement for everyone.
Sep 10, 2026
Sometimes defeat can be clarifying.
Last week, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against the City of Jackson, Mississippi, in which the plaintiffs alleged that city officials knowingly allowed residents to drink water that was unsafe, tainted with lead and dangerous microbes.
The facts are not in dispute. “The City’s public-water system is fraught with vexing shortcomings,” the court found. “In recent years, it produced water containing lead, E. Coli, and other bacteria, allegedly violated the Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA regulations, shut down and left residents without water for weeks, and necessitated the issuance of dozens of boil-water notices.”
Despite this, the court ruled that the lawsuit could not move forward. The problem for the plaintiffs, as the court found, was that these harms do not rise to the level of constitutional harm. “These deprivations, while grievous,” the court wrote, “do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” And so the court rejected their arguments.
Green Amendments legally elevate our rights to a clean, safe, healthy, and quality environment to the same level as our rights to speech, religion, and a free press.
What are we to make of a situation where a city can neglect its responsibilities, knowingly expose its residents to dangerous and life-altering contamination, and get away with it because, in the eyes of our legal system, “mismanagement of the public-water system resulting in Plaintiffs’ lead exposure is wholly different” from “sexual assault by a police officer,” “forced surgical examination,” “forced stomach pumping for evidence,” “and medicating prisoners against their will”?
Is it truly all that different? Just because the law excuses it, should we truly accept injustices that contaminate our bodies, make us sick, and cause lifelong learning disabilities in children?
We don’t have to–there is another option. We regroup. We reorganize. And we fight back. And in this case, we have a solution.
“It is undisputed that the [US] Constitution does not guarantee clean water,” the court wrote. That’s true. But it's not the whole story.
In Mississippi and in most states across our nation there is no constitutional right to clean water. But in three states, with dozens more on the same path, there is.
In Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth’s Constitution guarantees the “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.” It adds: “Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come,” and requires all government officials–both state and local–to conserve and maintain the state's natural resources for the benefit of the people.
The State Constitution of Montana recognizes the inalienable right “to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities.”
And New York’s constitution declares, “Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.”
It’s called a Green Amendment, and it is explicitly designed to protect people from harm like that suffered by the residents of Jackson, Mississippi.
Green Amendments are self-executing provisions added to a state constitution’s Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights that recognize, protect, and guarantee the inalienable rights of all people to an environment of quality, including pure water, clean air, a safe climate, and healthy environments.
Green Amendments legally elevate our rights to a clean, safe, healthy, and quality environment to the same level as our rights to speech, religion, and a free press. Green Amendments are clear in their protections, deriving their strength from plain and clear language, proven legal theories, and robust constitutional court precedent.
In short, Green Amendments rely upon the highest legal authorities we have in the US–our state and federal constitutions–and use their placement within the Bill of Rights to make environmental rights an unquestionable, enforceable legal entitlement for everyone.
When our rights to free speech or religion, to a free press or freedom of assembly are infringed upon by government action, we do not sit idly by and accept it. We rise up and demand our rights be protected, secure in the knowledge that we are backed by the clear and powerful language of our constitutions. Why should our right to pure water, clean air, or a healthy environment be any different? With Green Amendments they do not have to be.
Today pollution and environmental desecration are seen as entitlements of powerful industrial and political interests. Recall that in Sterling v. City of Jackson the court agreed that the city was poisoning its residents–but wouldn’t let the plaintiffs sue to rectify it with a remedy that protected all city residents from harm. Instead the court suggested that pursuit of tort claims, likely resulting in money damages for those who could document harm from the contaminated water, was good enough. That’s just the way it is, the court shrugged.
With Green Amendments, we transform this expectation. Our entitlement to a clean, safe, and healthy environment becomes the baseline government must responsibly protect.
Environmental issues are all around us these days: rising carbon emissions driving ever-hotter summers; PFAS, lead, mercury, and other toxic chemicals leaching into our drinking water; the hyperscaling of data centers slurping up ever growing amounts of land, water, and power.
With Green Amendments we may not always win when we experience environmental injustice, but they give us the constitutional ability to say, “No,” to push back, and to fight for our rights.
A Mississippi Green Amendment could have meant a very different outcome for communities living in the City of Jackson.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Medicare For All May Not Be as Far Away as You Fear
The pessimistic view that we are moving in the wrong direction sees only the waves at the surface. It misses the subterranean tremors underneath. If we fight, we can win.
Sep 10, 2026
Editor’s Note: The following is the third excerpt from Nancy J. Altman’s latest book, The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge, 2026), now available for purchase wherever quality books are sold. Read the first and second excerpts published by Common Dreams here and here. As the United States continues to spend substantially more on health care than other wealthy nations but with poorer health outcomes, Altman’s book analyzes the dysfunction of the current system and sets forth the solution. “Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight,” she argues, “but it is a fight we can win.”
As policy-wise and popular as Improved Medicare for All is, the nation may appear to be as far away from enacting Improved Medicare for All as possible. During his first term, Trump did what he could to accelerate the privatization of Medicare. Unfortunately, his thumb on the scale in favor of privatized Medicare is not only back, but is on steroids.
Adding to the sense that the nation may be as far away from Improved Medicare for All as possible, the Republicans enacted legislation that is projected to cause 15 million people to lose their health insurance. Adding to the sense that we are nowhere near enacting Improved Medicare for All, the two prior presidential elections, in 2016 and 2020, saw Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), two leading champions of Medicare for All, lose in the primary to the more centrist candidate Hillary Clinton, in 2016, and Joe Biden, in 2020. Trump defeated Clinton and won a second term in 2024 against Vice President Kamala Harris. Though Harris did not mention the fact in her presidential campaign, she was an original cosponsor of the Sanders-authored Medicare for All Act.
Trump’s election to a second term, the Republican control of Congress (as these words are written), and a Supreme Court with two-thirds of the justices who are acting as Trump advocates rather than independent jurists appear to suggest that the nation is moving away from national health insurance. But it is crucial to recognize that today is only a snapshot in time. The pessimistic view that we are moving in the wrong direction sees only the waves at the surface. It misses the subterranean tremors underneath. The Republican cuts to health insurance are already putting a strain on rural and inner-city hospitals, as well as nursing homes. The nation is seeing hospitals close as a result of the enactment. Their closure, in turn, strains even those hospitals and nursing homes not directly affected by the cuts.
Improved Medicare for All won’t magically become a reality. It will take all of us who support it to fight for it, in small and large ways.
With the cost of health care rising and, with it, increased insecurity, a majority of the electorate are concluding that the nation is moving in the wrong direction. Perhaps even more significantly, it will become clearer and clearer that the current path is unsustainable.
Importantly, two action-forcing events requiring Congressional legislation are on the horizon. Social Security and Medicare Part A, by law, can only pay benefits if they have sufficient dedicated revenue to cover their costs. To avoid an automatic across-the-board reduction of around 20 percent of the monthly Social Security benefits received by more than 70 million beneficiaries, and to avoid hospitals no longer being reimbursed, Congress must act. However the precise dates shift over the next few years, Congress unquestionably will have to act in the next half decade or so, before the revenue is insufficient to continue to pay full benefits.
Those action-forcing events provide an opportunity. Because those action-forcing events will result in must-pass legislation, provisions that expand Medicare, as well as Social Security, could be included. To make that a reality, though, it is essential that those who support Improved Medicare for All are fully prepared.
Improved Medicare for All won’t magically become a reality. It will take all of us who support it to fight for it, in small and large ways. The wonderful news is that determined activists are currently working hard to make Improved Medicare for All the law of the land. Building a winning coalition and other steps are already underway.
It is imperative that a winning coalition is built strong enough to defeat those who will fight against Improved Medicare for All. Physicians have been extremely active politically since the United States first started to seriously debate universal health insurance at the start of the twentieth century. Initially, the American Medical Association, whose members in 1910 comprised more than half the doctors in the nation, endorsed the legislation under consideration. Individual doctors, however, strenuously objected and made those objections known through their state medical societies. As a result, in 1920, the AMA’s House of Delegates formally voted to reverse its support, and instead opposed the initiatives.
While the AMA has been a staunch opponent ever since, that may be changing. Though the AMA has opposed national health insurance for over a century, doctors have much to gain from it. The image of the self-employed family doctor who makes house calls is virtually an anachronistic image. Today, around four out of five physicians – 77.6 percent – work for corporations. Historically, doctors have expressed concern over government oversight and interference. More and more, though, physicians’ reality is that they now live under commercial insurance oversight and interference. Unlike elected officials for whom Americans vote and whose salaries are set and paid transparently from public funds, doctors have no say over who runs private insurance companies and how they are operated.
A survey of doctors conducted by the Chicago Medical Society found that 66.8 percent had favorable views of a single-payer system.
The doctors most active in support of Improved Medicare for All are the leaders and 25,000 members of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). They have provided a clear and steady voice on the issue since their founding in 1987. In part because of PNHP’s sustained effort, doctors seem to be moving toward support for Improved Medicare for All. A survey of doctors conducted by the Chicago Medical Society found that 66.8 percent had favorable views of a single-payer system. In fact, when asked to choose between Medicare for All and an improved Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as Obamacare), the doctors chose Medicare for All by two to one!
The increasing support among doctors for Improved Medicare for All is likely in large part a response to how vexing and inadequate the current system is for all participants, including doctors. The increasing support for Improved Medicare for All may also reflect a more diversified pool of physicians. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, doctors were overwhelmingly white men, who tended to identify as Republicans. Accordingly, the AMA gave the majority of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates. Ninety-four percent of the medical students at that time were men. Only 2.5 percent of practicing physicians were African-American, generally having been trained in segregated settings. An even tinier 0.2 percent of medical students were Hispanic or indigenous at that time.
In contrast, women comprised 55.1 percent of the entering classes in accredited medical schools across the country for academic year 2024-25. That was the sixth year in a row that women made up the majority of medical school students. They comprised 54.9 percent of total enrollment. African-Americans comprised 10.3 percent of total enrollment, and Hispanics, 12.3 percent. In 2021, more than one out of four surgeons and other physicians – 26.5 percent – were foreign-born.
Led by PNHP, advocates of Improved Medicare for All must have a focused strategy geared toward physicians to solidify the support of doctors, with the goal of converting the AMA from a force in opposition to a force in support. With a focus on improving the quality of medical practice while compensating its providers adequately, along with improving Medicare and extending it to everyone, the goal for supporters of Improved Medicare for All should be to convince doctors to become a force for its enactment.
Physicians have been perhaps the hardest opponent to overcome in the past, because of the extremely close relationship they have had historically with their patients, who rely on their doctors when their lives are literally on the line. When doctors give patients advice, those words carry enormous weight, even if the advice is about whether universal health insurance would lead to better or worse health care. If physicians tell their patients the proposed legislation will harm their practice and therefore their patients’ health care, that is influential.
While attaining the support of the AMA can likely be achieved with concerted effort particularly and primarily by physicians themselves and would be extremely valuable, that support is not essential. After all, Medicare was enacted despite the AMA’s strong opposition. Moreover, while doctors historically have been extremely influential with their patients about health policy, and they remain so, the need to change doctors because they are no longer in-network and the increasing reliance on teams of healthcare providers, including nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians’ assistants, have increased the influence of nonphysician providers.
Nurses are another key group, and fortunately they have been leading the fight for Improved Medicare for All. Unlike the AMA, National Nurses United (NNU), the largest professional association of registered nurses, with 225,000 members nationwide, has been advocating for Improved Medicare for All for decades, with determination and effectiveness.
Following the lead of the AMA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals, has opposed the last century of efforts to enact national health insurance. Improved Medicare for All, with its guaranteed payments to providers, its ability to incentivize healthcare providers to practice where the need is highest, and its ability to use tax dollars to subsidize the most at-risk hospitals, is a solution. Though the AHA does not yet support Improved Medicare for All, advocates may be able to persuade individual hospital administrators and, over time, the AHA itself to recognize the advantages of Improved Medicare for All and join the effort.
Another powerful group that started as supportive in the early years but then quickly switched were employers, who worried about the cost to them and the potential government interference in what they considered their independent authority. Though they still oppose it today, they might be persuaded of its value to them because healthcare costs have grown so substantially, and the lack of universal national health insurance puts them at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign counterparts.
Most companies are primarily focused on the cost of health care and, therefore, should be open to Improved Medicare for All, if they are convinced it would reduce their costs. There are some industries, though, that have an overwhelmingly strong stake in the current inefficient, costly system. Pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacists, and their associations have been aggressive parts of the opposition from the beginning. Another opponent has been the insurance industry. Neither pharmaceutical companies nor health insurance companies are likely to be convinced to end their opposition to Improved Medicare for All. Pharmaceutical companies take advantage of the bloated system to make extraordinary profits. Under Improved Medicare for All, the pharmaceutical industry will still make profits. Price gouging, however, will stop. Similarly, health insurance companies, for which Improved Medicare for All is an existential threat, will fight as hard as possible.
Health care is a matter of life and death for virtually all of us at some point in our lives.
Those monied interests must be defeated – no easy task given their vast resources. As powerful as they are, history shows that they can be beaten. They can be defeated, if the electorate is engaged and determined. The way to defeat those stakeholders that cannot be convinced of the benefits of Improved Medicare for All is with ongoing motivated action at both the grassroots and grasstops levels. The strong antipathy to commercial health insurance, exposed by the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, reveals that the public may be ready to fight persistently, relentlessly, and effectively for accessible, affordable, high-quality health care for all.
History reveals that Americans’ support for national health insurance is generally widespread and strong at the start of the public push, likely because the need is so great, but that support can easily be shaken. Polling shows that support for Improved Medicare for All is susceptible to opposition messaging that invokes fear of loss and danger. That is not surprising, because health care is a matter of life and death for virtually all of us at some point in our lives. The challenge will be to keep people motivated and not swayed by half-truths and lies, which history demonstrates opponents are willing to deploy. The uber-wealthy want to defeat anything that will increase their costs and reduce their wealth, even by a little. They will seek to scare the American people to retain the status quo. Obviously, fear of failing to obtain adequate health care when needed is an extremely powerful fear that can be exploited.
A key player in maintaining the active support of the American people is organized labor. Studies show that union members are more likely to vote, to volunteer for candidates, and to be influenced by their union leadership in political matters generally. Importantly, they remain a counterweight to the corrosive power of self-interested billionaires and multinational corporations. While organized labor can be counted on, it does have concerns that should be addressed. These include the fact that in negotiating for the generous healthcare plans their members enjoy, they had to trade away current compensation. Moreover, some workers involved in the administration of the current wasteful system will lose employment as a result of the greater efficiency of Improved Medicare for All. Both of those concerns should be addressed as part of the fight for Improved Medicare for All. Both issues are discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, which focuses on the counterattack.
A crucial part to winning the fight for Improved Medicare for All is extremely careful messaging to strengthen the commitment and effort of supporters and to win over those who may be skeptical.
As part of the effort to enact Improved Medicare for All, advocates must be an active part of the fight for workers’ rights to unionize and build union strength. In addition, advocates must employ a careful strategy, in addition to relying on unions, to convince the American people to fight for Improved Medicare for All.
Using the right messaging is key. While the majority of Americans favor Improved Medicare for All, polling indicates that the support can be shaken simply by the way the issue is framed. For example, while 63 percent have a positive reaction to the phrases “Medicare for all,” and “Universal health coverage,” that reaction drops to 49 percent when the phrase is “Single-payer health insurance system,” and 43 percent when the proposal is called “Socialized medicine.” People’s opinions can change dramatically depending on what is emphasized. When those polled are told that Medicare for All will increase their taxes, support drops to just 37 percent. When, though, they are told there will be no premiums and out-of-pocket costs will be reduced, support increases to 67 percent. Indeed, when those polled are told that the proposal guarantees health care as a right for all, support jumps to 71 percent.
This means that a crucial part to winning the fight for Improved Medicare for All is extremely careful messaging to strengthen the commitment and effort of supporters and to win over those who may be skeptical. While the facts are important and strongly on the side of advocates of Improved Medicare for All, history teaches that winning must include effective messaging that is repeated frequently.
Careful strategizing and messaging are especially crucial with respect to older Americans who are Medicare beneficiaries or are about to become so. Seniors have, on average, the greatest need for health care and are the most reliable voters. History shows that they generally pay keen attention to conversations about retirement security and health care. Older Americans were key to the enactment of Social Security in 1935 and its improvements ever since. They were also key to the enactment of Medicare in 1965. History also reveals, though, that the deployment of fear tactics targeted toward seniors can be effective, unfortunately. Consequently, it is vital that proponents of national health insurance have a systematic strategy with respect to seniors, including careful messaging.
In particular, the name Medicare for All may be a two-edged sword. The name presumably tests so well because Medicare, having completed its 61st year, is widely known and understood. Virtually all Americans know people who currently are covered by Medicare and appropriately expect to be covered themselves one day, if they aren’t currently. Consequently, it is harder to demonize as something scary, foreign, and potentially dangerous.
As important as the enactment of Medicare was, both in its own right and as a first big step toward Improved Medicare for All, its creation established a part of the population that might believe that they have something to lose by its expansion to others. Opponents can and have played on the fear that expanding Medicare to the entire population will dilute it and endanger it. For this reason, it may be prudent to always call the proposal, as this book does, Improved Medicare for All.
Starting with the word, “improved” subtly emphasizes that it will benefit those currently on Medicare. The improvements make the proposal a winner for current beneficiaries. It will eliminate all of their out-of-pocket costs. Its long-term care coverage will be a lifesaver for one out of every three seniors and their families. That coverage of long-term care will end the need for seniors to spend all of their assets to qualify for Medicaid and the care they need. Instead, it will allow seniors to pass on whatever savings they have accumulated to their children and grandchildren. Moreover, simply the knowledge of that coverage will provide everyone with greater peace of mind.
For those who today have traditional Medicare, Improved Medicare for All will provide them with hearing, vision, and dental services. And it will free everyone from the complicated sign-up process that current Medicare enrollees must wade through for prescription drug coverage, Medigap coverage, and, for increasing numbers, the erroneously-named Medicare Advantage. In that regard, though, supporters must have a strategy for those who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage. The ending of Medicare Advantage is particularly challenging to message, because it is extremely popular at least until people get seriously ill, when its extra benefits are of less concern and its narrow network of providers and deny/delay tactics are life-threatening. How to message Medicare Advantage, as well as messaging more generally to seniors, is dealt with in greater detail in the next chapter. The basic point, though, is that messaging specifically aimed at reassuring and enlisting seniors must be a key part of a winning strategy.
Fundamentally, advocates must be astute about employing the most effective messaging. The issue should be constantly polled and the messaging refined, as part of an overarching strategy and game plan. The bottom line, though, is that a winning strategy must include careful messaging that is snappy and compelling, but brief. The messaging must be used repeatedly, consistently, and widely.
Keep Reading
Show Less
You Can Fight Trump's Voter Suppression Efforts With One Simple Action: Voting
The effort to undermine the election is failing. It will succeed only if citizens stay home.
Sep 10, 2026
Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.” That’s not quite our approach at the Brennan Center. We worry. (Dr. Franklin also advised, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”)
What are we particularly concerned about as we look toward November?
Voter confusion is perhaps the biggest risk. People ask, understandably, can they still vote by mail? Will I need to show a passport or birth certificate to register? It has been many years since the freedom to vote has faced so many proposed challenges, and never before from the federal government. With all the news and noise, citizens cannot be expected to follow the executive edicts and ping-ponging court rulings in minute detail.
In fact, for voters, very little has actually changed. Congress and courts blocked all those bad ideas. The SAVE Act never passed. As a general matter, citizens can cast ballots as before.
After all the push and pull, voters can make their voices heard. Make a plan to vote. Vote early if possible. In person, with a drop box, or if necessary, using the mail.
With less than two months to go, President Donald Trump’s drive to undermine the election is failing. Judges, states and counties, and voting rights groups have blocked his moves. If we keep at it, we can have free and fair elections in 2026.
What else keeps us on edge? The Supreme Court, of course. It is now considering whether to undo a trial court’s decision blocking a rule that would allow the US Postal Service to withhold mail ballots. The trial court determined that rule is illegal and unconstitutional.
If the court allows the USPS to implement its rule, it would introduce chaos and disenfranchise many voters just before the election, as a USPS whistleblower explained in a friend-of-the-court brief detailing the agency’s rushed and flawed process to implement the rule. The court will likely rule in a matter of days on the administration’s request to allow the USPS rule. Fingers crossed.
Here’s a third concern: a growing risk of foreign interference. America is at war. (An illegal, unauthorized war, worth noting.) In 1980, the “October surprise” was the notion that Iran would release Americans it held hostage to influence that year’s election. Let’s hope that Iranian hackers do not produce a digital “October surprise” this year.
Iran has shown its ability to break into municipal water systems in Minnesota. In previous elections, Russia and China have tried to sway voters or attack registration lists. Trump’s purge of election security offices means that American elections have less federal protection against malevolent foreign hackers than before.
States have worked hard to get ready. And it’s important to remember that there is no way for even the most sophisticated schemer to change the results. Voting machines are not connected to the internet. And citizens cast ballots with a paper record, which can be audited and recounted.
Some of our worries are decreasing.
First, “ICE at the polls.” That could still happen. But deployment of federal forces is illegal under numerous federal and state laws. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pledged recently not to use federal troops, correctly asserting, “Election administration and security remain the fundamental responsibility of state and local officials.” We have growing confidence that courts would step in fast. At the Brennan Center, we are prepared to sue if necessary. The briefs are written, and the toner is in the printer.
Then there are the Justice Department observers deployed to some states. They are annoying and often seem like a bit of a mess. But they too are subject to the laws that prohibit voter intimidation, and state officials are prepared to speak up if observers are disruptive.
And as for the worry that electoral winners won’t be certified, we are increasingly confident that courts will step in here, too. Judges have been heroes and upheld the rule of law.
But courts are not enough. We need a citizen mobilization to watch polls, help voters, and blow the whistle on abuse. That, too, gives hope.
It’s going to be a busy two months. No doubt Trump and his partisans will fling new charges every few days. All that clatter can confuse voters further. Perhaps that’s part of the goal.
So for all of us who want voters to have their say in 2026, a chief job is to stay calm and make clear that—as of right now, at least—little has changed. That’s a task for the news media. Public officials should be clear and calm. We who fight for voting rights must measure our own tone, so as not to rattle confidence.
After all the push and pull, voters can make their voices heard. Make a plan to vote. Vote early if possible. In person, with a drop box, or if necessary, using the mail. As we’ve said before, the effort to undermine the election is failing. It will succeed only if citizens stay home.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Donald Trump Is Laughing All the Way to the Bank... at the End of the World
By embracing fossil fuels and shutting down renewable energy, “our” president is making a fortune off end-of-the-world policies. Think of him, in fact, not figuratively, but all too literally, as the president from hell.
Sep 10, 2026
Honestly, I don’t think we really get it yet.
Let’s face it. It’s going to be hot, hot, hot. Or do I mean hotter, hotter, hotter, or even hottest, hottest, hottest, or someday, for all we know, beyond any words we might now have to describe it.
Though it seldom seems that way in the daily news, we’re talking about a genuinely apocalyptic possibility. Give us human beings full credit. Somehow, we’ve managed to come up with not one but two distinctly apocalyptic ways to potentially destroy ourselves and this planet—one a relatively speedy way to go and the other already operating in world-destroying slow motion—and that, believe me, is no small thing.
Here are just a few examples of that slow-motion version of our self-destruction on this increasingly extreme planet of... well, can I really say “ours” anymore, or should I say theirs?
The Don is indeed an atomic bomb or at least a climate bomb of a president his second time around.
Of course, Europe has recently experienced remarkably extreme temperatures and scorching fires across significant parts of the continent (heat estimated to have resulted in at least 16,000 extra deaths—and no, that is not a misprint—at its high point in June and at least 35,000 across the whole summer). Western Europe, in fact, experienced the hottest June on record. And that (or worse) is increasingly likely to be an every-summer event for what’s now the fastest-warming continent on this planet.
And don’t forget that the predicted El Niño in the Pacific beginning this fall, expected to be the strongest in more than a century, or a “Godzilla” event (if you happen to remember your movie dinosaurs), is likely to heat significant parts of the planet even more severely. (Oh, and in case you missed it, it’s not just the land that’s getting ever hotter. This August, the world’s oceans hit their hottest temperature ever—yes, ever!—adding, of course, to sea level rise and the further flooding of coastal communities.)
And sadly enough, we just can’t seem to stop, can we? Worse yet, humanity’s latest brilliant invention-discovery—artificial intelligence—may someday have to be relabeled artificial stupidity (of the first order), given that the production of AI is, it seems, going to involve pouring staggering amounts of—yes, of course!—fossil fuels into our already overheating atmosphere. As environmental expert Bill McKibben put it recently, “The planned data center buildout will increase greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by at least 20%, and perhaps as much as a third.”
In truth, you’ve got to hand it to us humans when it comes to utter self-destructiveness (and I’m not even thinking about our never-ending, devastating wars from Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan and Somalia that also pour endless fossil fuels into the atmosphere, as does the US military).
A Global Disaster That Needs a New Name
You would think, of course, that, faced with what’s likely to happen in the years to come, humanity might have responded by working ever harder to bring our fossil-fuel usage under control. But not much such luck there, of course. After all, China, the country that has moved in the most significant fashion on climate change by figuring out how to produce ever more green energy and sell globally the mechanisms—solar panels, batteries, and wind turbine equipment—that make it (as well as stunning numbers of electric vehicles), continues to pour the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere of any place on Earth.
And though other countries are indeed beginning to try to switch to green power, when you look at this endangered planet of ours, explain to me how, in 2024, the American people by a slight majority (even if not quite 50% of the vote) managed to reelect as president one Donald J. Trump, a climate-change denier of the first order. And in his second term in office, he’s focused as much attention as he’s capable of focusing (which, of course, is a distinctly limited amount) on blocking wind and solar projects while promoting ever more fossil-fuel production of every kind. (And of course, in the process, he’s brilliantly ceding the vast and growing green-energy sales market to that other superpower, China.)
Let me guarantee you one thing: Someday, when it comes to the overheating of this world of ours, he will be seen as an almost unparalleled idiot, assuming that anybody then is seeing much of anything.
Consider climate change, in fact, a potential global disaster that deserves a far more horrifying name. And consider it just the latest form of (in)human warfare to come to our attention, this time against the planet itself as a livable place for us. And consider it as well no small thing that we humans have indeed produced a second way to essentially destroy this planet and ourselves.
A Climate Bomb of a President
As for that first one, it’s still unsettling to think about the way the United States developed the atomic bomb and then used it twice in August 1945 to devastate the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and end World War II in the Pacific. And those first two bombs did indeed represent, all too literally (or do I mean figuratively?), something new on this planet that, until that moment, had only been a dystopian fantasy—the possible future ability of humanity to totally devastate this planet of ours? In fact, given human history, consider it little short of a miracle that, 80 years later, with at least nine countries now possessing atomic weapons, often in significant quantities—there are now an estimated 12,000 such weapons on planet Earth—one has never been used again in wartime (although more than 2,000 have been detonated in atomic tests in what still passes for peacetime).
And there can be little question that, were an atomic war to break out between any of the great (or even lesser) powers on this planet, we could indeed find ourselves thoroughly devastated.
Now, give us humans distinct credit since, having developed a first way to functionally do in this planet of ours and ourselves, we then came up with a completely separate, distinctly slow-motion version of planetary destruction via our use of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—to pour what have come to be known as greenhouse gases that trap heat into the atmosphere, potentially broiling this planet in a process that’s come to be known all too mildly as—yes!—“climate change.” (Think of it, in fact, as a slow-motion version of atomic warfare happening right before our eyes every moment of every day.)
And unfortunately, when it became ever more obvious that this was indeed another way to do this planet in, the response was sadly all too different from atomic weaponry, with the urge to stop it proving far milder than it should be.
And of course, in 2024, Americans did indeed vote to reelect a presidential candidate all too literally committed to broiling this planet of ours (as, by the way, is Vladimir Putin, the ruler of one of the other great powers on this planet). Yes, the Don is indeed an atomic bomb or at least a climate bomb of a president his second time around. And don’t forget that, this time, among the donors celebrating his victory and inauguration with giant financial contributions was oil company Chevron with $500,000. (In fact, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has reported that, overall, oil companies invested $5 million in that inauguration alone—and even that may be a low estimate.)
And yes, his second time in office he did also launch his own version of a global nuclear arms race, but that, sadly, is the least of it, since he’s distinctly determined to release ever more fossil fuels into our world, while doing anything he can to shut down wind power, in particular. Oh, and don’t forget that, amid all the climate chaos and—thanks to his war on Iran—fossil fuel chaos as well, he continues to make a fortune (as much as $15.5 million or a nearly 40% rise since January) from fossil fuel stocks he owns, including shares in ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. And more are evidently still being purchased for him.
And all of that is a reality of our world even as, thanks to his war with Iran, American drivers continue to pay ever more for their gas. And with that new El Niño climate pattern already on the all-too-literal horizon and guaranteed to wildly overheat the Pacific Ocean, starting this fall, this planet is only going to get hotter yet. That coming “Godzilla” event could, as The Guardian reports, “push about 50 million people worldwide into acute hunger before the end of next year.”
In short, “our” president is making a fortune off end-of-the-world policies. Think of him, in fact, not figuratively, but all too literally, as the president from hell.
And if you want to add to the potentially world-ending nightmares of this planet at this very moment, keep in mind that, over its long history, humanity has proven all too brilliant when it comes to destruction. So don’t for a second imagine that there isn’t, in fact, a third (or even a fourth) way to do us all in still waiting to be discovered just over (or under?) the present horizon.
Keep Reading
Show Less
We Need a President Who Wants to Build a Better Country, Not a Bigger Ballroom
Trump understands how to wield power. His objectives and motivations are all wrong, but we need a president who will to exert executive authority in the name of the common good and a brighter future for our nation.
Sep 10, 2026
We are in a situation, as a country, and I think largely as the West generally, that only Trump can solve.
Now, I don’t mean specifically Donald J. Trump. I mean specifically a person who understands power in the same way Donald Trump understands power. He understands that the executive branch is enormous, that it works for the president, and that when all of that power is pointed toward a purpose it can push through a hell of a lot of blockades. Treasury, Labor, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, federal procurement, federal credit, federal land, regulatory agencies, it’s all power. A president can treat that machinery as something to politely administer, or decide the country needs to go somewhere and put it to work getting there.
Trump has done the second thing. He has pushed presidential authority on tariffs, executive control over the government, elections, executive orders, independent agencies and the courts. When one route gets blocked, he looks for another. His sweeping emergency tariffs were struck down, so the administration moved to other existing tariff authorities. His administration has tried to use federal power to change the rules around mail voting and has pushed a broad version of the unitary executive, the idea that a president elected to carry out a program must be able to control the executive branch charged with carrying it out. You can argue about the legality of any particular move, and the courts obviously have. The thing I am interested in is that he understands where the power is and is willing to use it.
The Democrats largely recoil from this idea. Part of that is their commitment to neoliberalism, and part of it is what I consider a perverted view of liberalism generally. There is this idea that the president should manage the government, send some proposals to Congress, wait for the courts, respect every inherited norm, avoid picking too many fights and explain to everybody that change takes time.
One of the most successful Democratic presidents in American history rejected that notion.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood power. He understood that the country had elected him to do something and that doing something meant fighting people who didn’t want it done. He named financial monopoly, reckless banking and organized money as enemies. He welcomed their hatred. He even went after incumbent Democrats who were standing in the way of the New Deal. His 1938 effort to knock off conservative Democrats mostly failed, but the important thing is that he tried. He wasn’t a “blue no matter who” president.
Roosevelt also understood something about checks and balances that party leaders ignore. Checks and balances are not just something that exists inside the government. There has to be a balance of power between markets, corporations, financial institutions and people. If, as they have now, corporations and the ultra wealthy have enough economic power, they can manage our lives without ever passing a law. Prices can control where we live. Employers control our healthcare options. Banks decide who gets credit. Utilities decide what electricity costs. A handful of companies control supply, wages, access and entire markets.
The only entity capable of balancing power away from the ultra wealthy and back toward ordinary people is us through our government. Roosevelt knew that market intervention was required, that the existing stranglehold of private power would prevent us from building the country we needed.
So he put the government to work producing.
The federal government directly hired people. It directly built things. It financed factories, built dams, generated electricity, expanded electric transmission, built public housing, roads, schools, parks and public buildings, financed rural electrification and created institutions that did not exist before. When millions of people needed work, programs like the WPA and CCC didn’t use tax credits or incentives to encourage private companies to do the work. The government hired them and put them to work building things the country needed.
TVA is probably the cleanest example. The government did not ask private utilities to please make electricity cheaper and more available across the Tennessee Valley. It built dams, generated power and created a public power system capable of transforming an entire region. That same capacity later helped power wartime industry and the Manhattan Project.
Then the war came and this way of thinking went into overdrive. The production requirements were absurd. We needed more planes, ships, tanks, trucks, engines, aluminum, rubber and ammunition than the existing industrial system could possibly produce. If Roosevelt had accepted the normal assumptions about how long factories took to build and how slowly markets adjusted, the answer would have been that it couldn’t be done. Europe would have lost the war.
Luckily for us FDR didn’t accept that answer.
Big Bill Knudsen, the former president of General Motors, became one of the people Roosevelt put to work organizing production. The government financed factories, built factories, owned factories, paid private companies to operate factories, allocated scarce materials, guaranteed demand and forced production priorities toward the things the country needed. The Detroit Arsenal is a perfect example. We needed tanks, so the government financed and built a giant tank plant and had Chrysler operate it. The point was not ideological purity about who owned what. We needed the factory, so we built the factory.
That is the part people leave out when they talk about American capitalism winning the war. The market didn’t wake up one morning, notice a profitable opportunity to defeat Hitler and organically produce the arsenal of democracy. The government decided what had to exist and then organized the public and private capacity needed to make it exist.
We did the same thing over and over again. We produced enough material to equip ourselves and supply the Allies. We built enough industrial capacity that after the war the United States could help rebuild Europe, build huge amounts of housing and infrastructure, expand electricity and create the material abundance people now look back on as if it somehow appeared naturally.
Donald Trump understands the power part. His problem is purpose.
He can point the executive branch toward immigrants, DEI, universities, the radical left, bureaucrats he considers disloyal, mail voting, allies, or whatever enemy is useful that week, and even if he defeated every one of them tomorrow, their houses would still cost too much, their healthcare would still cost too much, their electric bill would still be too high, childcare would still be too expensive, their town would still have too few doctors, their roads and bridges would still need work, their kids would still be wondering how the hell they are going to afford a house, and the country would still not have enough manufacturing capacity to make many of the things we depend on.
Roosevelt pointed power toward production. Electricity, jobs, housing, infrastructure, finance, labor power, factories, industrial capacity. If private capital would not build what was needed, government could build it. If private finance wouldn’t finance it, government would. If people needed jobs, government could hire them. If private utilities wouldn’t electrify poor communities at an affordable price, public power did.
This is the part modern Democrats seem determined to forget. They love storytelling. They love talking about fairness, dignity, community and opportunity. They seem much less interested in the fact that Roosevelt’s politics were believable because something existed underneath the story. People could see the dam. They could see the electric line. They could see the road. They could see the factory being built and their neighbor going to work.
The story worked because it was attached to a vision, a bold vision, and then that vision was attached to doing.
That is also what people misunderstand about vision. A vision does not become believable because it is small. Getting to the moon was ridiculous. Rebuilding the industrial base? Providing healthcare to every American? Building enough housing to make it affordable? Training hundreds of thousands of doctors, nurses, engineers, machinists and tradespeople? All quite ridiculous.
Until we start doing it.
If you say you are going to the moon and then build the rockets, launch facilities, factories, training programs and engineering teams, and start blowing shit up in Florida, people begin to believe you might actually be going to the moon.
The thing I hear over and over whenever we talk about rebuilding the country is that it takes time. Of course it takes time. A factory takes time to build. A doctor takes time to train. A power plant takes time to construct. The decision to start takes time. Starting doesn’t. The fact that a project takes six years to finish can’t require ten years of debate before the first shovel goes into the ground.
The executive branch is enormous, and when it is wielded toward a purpose it can coordinate agencies, use federal purchasing to create markets, use federal credit to finance capacity, use procurement to change what gets produced, direct departments to use old authorities in new ways, and force Congress and the courts to respond to a government that is already moving instead of spending years asking permission to imagine moving.
Trump understands that. Roosevelt understood it too.
The difference that matters is what the power is for.
If we want people to believe democratic government can solve their problems, democratic government is going to have to solve some fucking problems. It is going to have to build things again, produce things again, hire people, generate electricity, build transmission, build housing, expand medical capacity, build factories and create enough material abundance that ordinary people can see their lives getting better.
Then we can tell the story.
It’s time we find a president ready and willing to use executive power to build a better America, not a bigger ballroom.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Muslim Children Should Not Carry the Burden of the 9/11 Attacks
Every child should learn about the devastating consequences of hatred, extremism, and violence, but no child should be made to feel responsible for those events simply because they share a faith with the perpetrators.
Sep 10, 2026
Muslim children were not born carrying the weight of 9/11. Society placed it on their shoulders. It is time for us to take it off.
As a child, I was called a "camel queen" by my teachers. Years later, while I was pregnant, a college professor looked at my stomach and joked in front of the whole class that I might have a "bomb" under there.
He was talking about my unborn child.
What has stayed with me all these years is not only the cruelty of the remark. It was where it happened. The comment came from a professor, in a classroom, an environment that should have been a place of learning, respect, and safety.
I hear from young people who become anxious when classroom discussions turn to terrorism or September 11. Not because they do not want to learn history, but because they worry the conversation will somehow become about them.
In that moment, I was not seen as a student, a mother-to-be, or a human being. I was seen through the lens of a vicious stereotype.
That moment taught me something I have never forgotten: Anti-Muslim prejudice is not always loud or obvious. Sometimes it appears as a joke. Sometimes it appears as an assumption. Sometimes it appears in the expectation that Muslims must constantly prove that they are not what others fear they might be.
My experience is not unique. In May, a 12-year-old Muslim student in Connecticut was reportedly subjected to repeated harassment and called anti-Muslim names. In a sign of the times, the Danbury Police Department searched the family’s home for weapons after allegations were made against the student.
In a 2025 survey of Muslims, the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), found, “Forty-seven percent of Muslim families with school-aged children report having a child who faced religious-based bullying in the past year, compared with 23% among the general public.”
Like many Muslim children, I learned early what it felt like to be viewed as different, foreign, or less worthy. Those experiences leave scars that are difficult to explain to people who have never lived them.
Today, I see those same burdens carried by Muslim students.
I hear from young people who become anxious when classroom discussions turn to terrorism or September 11. Not because they do not want to learn history, but because they worry the conversation will somehow become about them.
They wonder whether classmates will look at them and make jokes.
They wonder whether they will be expected to condemn atrocities they had nothing to do with.
No child should have to carry that burden.
This week, the organization I work for issued its Back to School Resource Guide for 2026-2027, which I authored. The guide gives teachers tips on how to discuss challenging topics with students, including providing comprehensive lesson plans that address the 9/11 attacks, specifically the victims and families impacted; the aftermath of the attacks, such as the war in Afghanistan; changes in national security; and the rise of hate crimes and discrimination against American Muslim communities.
The purpose of educational resources that address bias and inclusion is not to rewrite history or erase the tragedy of September 11. Muslims, like millions of other Americans, mourned the victims of al Qaeda’s vicious attacks. We condemned the perpetrators then, and we continue to condemn them today.
The purpose is much simpler: to help ensure that students can learn about difficult moments in history without becoming targets themselves.
Every child should be able to learn about 9/11. Every child should learn about the devastating consequences of hatred, extremism, and violence. But no child should be made to feel responsible for those events simply because they share a faith with the people who hijacked it.
I am no longer the little girl being mocked on the playground by teachers. I am no longer the college student sitting in a classroom while a professor jokes about my unborn child. But children today face many of the same assumptions.
Our children deserve better than that. They deserve classrooms where they are seen as students, not suspects. They deserve the freedom to learn about history without being associated with its worst actors. And they deserve a future in which their identity is not treated as a source of suspicion.
Most of all, they deserve to be children, free from the burden of defending themselves against crimes they did not commit.
Keep Reading
Show Less
The Very Clear and Easy Case for Abdul El-Sayed
And why Mike Rogers would be a disaster for the country.
Sep 09, 2026
The Democratic establishment, along with AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spent between $60 million and $70 million trying to prevent Dr. Abdul El-Sayed from winning Michigan’s Democratic primary—roughly 11 times the money backing El-Sayed.
He won nonetheless and now faces the Republican nominee, Mike Rogers, in a race that will help determine control of the Senate after the midterms in November.
I hope Michiganders elect El-Sayed, who will be a great US senator.
After receiving an advanced degree in public health, El-Sayed worked as an epidemiologist. Informed by this experience and expertise, he advocates access to healthcare as a right and not a privilege.
He also advocates economic security for all, financed by a tax system that asks more from the wealthy. He’s a champion of civil rights. He’s a fighter for affordability against predatory landlords, monopolistic corporations, and billionaires who turn their wealth into political power.
Most Jewish Americans have values that align with Dr. El-Sayed’s. He believes in social justice—that government can be a force for good as it helps expand opportunities, protect rights, and advance the common good.
Yet AIPAC is continuing its battle against El-Sayed. It is expected to put tens of millions of dollars behind Rogers, some of it disguised behind other PACs. “Our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr. El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda in November,” said Deryn Sousa, a spokeswoman for AIPAC.
El-Sayed is no more anti-Israel than I am.
Being opposed to Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing Israeli government is not the same as being anti-Israel. Nor should it be equated with being antisemitic. Nor, for that matter, should opposition to Netanyahu and his government be seen as condoning the brutal Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, in which 1,200 were murdered and 251 taken hostage. It was an atrocity and a crime against humanity.
I believe Netanyahu is a war criminal and that his government has committed genocide in Gaza. I’m appalled that he and it continue to allow and excuse horrific violence on the West Bank against Palestinians. For this reason, I don’t believe the United States should arm Netanyahu’s government with destructive military equipment.
This doesn’t make me anti-Israel. For decades I’ve advocated a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, and I continue to believe it’s the only sane and reasonable way for these two peoples to peacefully coexist.
This certainly doesn’t make me antisemitic, either. I’m Jewish. Some of my relatives died in Hitler’s gas chambers. My mother and father were told they were unwelcome in the small town they moved to when I was a toddler because, according to the group of old men who met them at the doorstep of our new home, it was a “Christian community.”
Like me, Dr. El-Sayed opposes what the government of Netanyahu has done and continues to do. El-Sayed has affirmed that “Jewish Israelis and Palestinians alike have the right to peace, dignity, and self-determination.” He has acknowledged the horror of October 7, condemned all forms of antisemitism, and been highly critical of Israel’s war in Gaza and abuses in the West Bank.
Ten days ago El-Sayed publicly apologized for any misinterpretation people might have placed on remarks he made after a man attacked a synagogue in a Detroit suburb in March. The man, Ayman Mohammad Ghazali, had lost four relatives in an Israeli airstrike on Lebanon the week before.
In a video response at the time, El-Sayed condemned the attack. He added that “hurt people hurt people,” a reference to what happened to Ghazali’s family. Critics accused El-Sayed of justifying Ghazali’s actions.
If you read the transcript of what El-Sayed actually said, it’s clear he was merely trying to explain and give context for the violence. “What I was trying to do was offer context for why it happened, but it wasn’t the time for context,” El-Sayed said in apology. “And you don’t ever want to trample somebody’s pain.”
There is enough pain on all sides—pain for Israelis and Palestinians, for Muslims and Jews. Which is why it’s so important that all of us think clearly and carefully. Being anti-Netanyahu isn’t being anti-Israel, nor is it being antisemitic.
It’s also critically important that the good people of Michigan oppose Mike Rogers, who endorsed and voted for legislation last year that cut Affordable Care Act insurance for millions of Americans, weakened Medicaid and food assistance to less affluent citizens, and provided tax breaks to the very rich.
Rogers has warmly and enthusiastically praised Trump. He’s failed to publicly condemn or even criticize Trump’s bigoted statements about ethnic communities in the United States. He hasn’t said a word against Trump’s unconscionable pardon of the more than 1000 insurrectionists who rioted at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. This includes those found guilty of the most heinous acts, causing grievous bodily harm to law enforcement officers.
My view is we need smart, committed progressives such as Abdul El-Sayed in the Senate. And we need right-wing Trump suckups such as Mike Rogers out of the Senate.
Keep Reading
Show Less
After 9/11, the 'War on Terror' Was a War of Terror
The crusade that George W. Bush launched 25 years ago to “rid the world of evil” only compounded it.
Sep 09, 2026
Three days after terrorists killed almost 3,000 people in the United States on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush stood behind a pulpit at the Washington National Cathedral and spoke to a nation in shock. “Our responsibility to history is already clear,” he proclaimed, “to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.” The vow was, of course, preposterous. Yet the “war on terror” that followed was scarcely more realistic.
“Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic,” retired US Army General William Odom told C-SPAN viewers in 2002. “It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war. We’re not going to win the war on terrorism.” But the American military crusade became more about persisting than winning. The ultraviolent momentum became its own reason. The destructive search for enemies created more. As years went by and the “war on terror” label faded, US warfare was so normal in so many places that it no longer needed a name or much of a rationale.
But 25 years ago, the impulse to avenge the horrors of 9/11 was instant. Fear and rage blended into high octane for war machinery. Suddenly, overwhelming public emotions were fully in sync with the psychology of a military-industrial complex set for large-scale killing.
Even as the trauma of the terrible day eased for the general public, 9/11 continued to serve as a political license to kill without an expiration date.
None of the 19 hijackers were Afghan, and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s ties were much tighter with Saudi Arabia, but his presence in Afghanistan put that country in the Pentagon’s gunsights. The question in US media was not about whether, but when, to attack. The answer came on October 7 when American missiles began to explode in Afghanistan. Hours later, a Gallup poll found that “90 percent of Americans approve of the United States taking such military action, while just 5 percent are opposed, and another 5 percent are unsure.”
The air war remained quite popular in the United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held daily live televised briefings that catapulted him to national adulation. A pattern set in, taking for granted that American warfare was beneficent in intent and benign in meaningful impact. People dying under American bombs and less directly didn’t count for much. “The targeting capabilities, and the care that goes into targeting, to see that the precise targets are struck, and that other targets are not struck, is as impressive as anything anyone could see,” Rumsfeld asserted. And he added, “The weapons that are being used today have a degree of precision that no one ever dreamt of.”
Rumsfeld’s style went over big. “Everyone is genuflecting before the Pentagon powerhouse,” exclaimed the Washington Post’s media reporter, Howard Kurtz, who called Rumsfeld “America’s new rock star.” That winter, after the Taliban government fell, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press program congratulated Rumsfeld on the air: “Sixty-nine years old and you’re America’s stud.”
The war in Iraq, launched with a March 2003 invasion, relied on massive air power and more than 150,000 US ground troops. The Saddam Hussein dictatorship fell quickly, but the promised “cakewalk” turned into year after year of combat and slaughter. Mainstream US media outlets were more than comfortable with above-it-all bombing that signified American air prowess. But the toll of American deaths and severe injuries gradually depleted enthusiasm as soldiers were called back for two, three or even more tours of duty. For many, the images of glory days turned into real-life nightmares.
The ongoing war effort that began in autumn 2001 had an implicit throughline in dominant media and politics: while American lives really matter, the victims of American firepower really don’t.
President Bush could not accept defeat in Iraq, and later Barack Obama could not countenance defeat in Afghanistan. Early in his presidency, Obama—in deed and word—made the “war on terror” expressly bipartisan. Less than a year after he received the Nobel Peace Prize in late 2009, the American troop level in Afghanistan reached 100,000, triple the number when he had entered the White House. During a visit to Bagram Air Base near Kabul, Obama provided the service members with star-spangled oratory that could be heard as uplifting or perhaps macabre: “I’ve been humbled by your sacrifice in the solemn homecoming of flag-draped coffins at Dover, to the headstones in section 60 at Arlington, where the fallen from this war rest in peace alongside the fellow heroes of America’s story.”
In effect, even as the trauma of the terrible day eased for the general public, 9/11 continued to serve as a political license to kill without an expiration date. Through it all, the ongoing war effort that began in autumn 2001 had an implicit throughline in dominant media and politics: while American lives really matter, the victims of American firepower really don’t.
* * *
Faraway uses of Pentagon air power had human consequences that hardly registered on political scales back home. For officialdom, tech innovations like drones were unalloyed marvels. The people who experienced terror had no voices, no faces, no names. On the rare occasions when that wasn’t the case, general interest was scant. After seven months in Taliban captivity, New York Times reporter David Rohde escaped from rugged terrain in Pakistan and later recounted what it was like to have US drones constantly hovering overhead: “The drones were terrifying. From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death.”
The proclaimed war on terror had also become a war of terror.
A few days into his presidency, Obama sent Predator drones into Pakistan, killing three children and a dozen adults. A week later, a former “whiz kid” at the Pentagon during escalation of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Pierre Sprey, appeared on the PBS program hosted by Bill Moyers. Sprey saw where US officials were headed with their air war. “I’d be astonished if one in five people they kill or wound is in fact a militant,” he said. “You can’t tell with a camera or an infrared sensor or something whether somebody’s a Taliban…. Most likely, you’re relying on some Afghani of unknown veracity and unknown motivation and who may, may very well be trying to settle a blood feud rather than give you good information.” But, Sprey added, “bombing is always politically popular, relative to sending infantry and killing our boys.”
Obama officials were enamored with the American air war, in spite of evidence that it was routinely killing many bystanders. In 2022, Phyllis Bennis at the Institute for Policy Studies offered this assessment: “The so-called ‘global war on terror’ has, from its origins, been characterized by attacks by US Special Forces, by airstrikes, by armed drones, and more, that routinely kill far more civilians than the targets identified on the ‘kill lists’ prepared by presidents and top White House officials. The routine recitation of ‘there is no military solution to terrorism’ has always been an anodyne rhetorical ploy, never an actual guide to what actions might actually work to change the conditions that give rise to terrorism.”
Ironically and tragically, the conditions giving rise to terrorism included the US war waged in the name of ending it. The process was foreseeable. In 1998, the Pakistani-American political scientist Eqbal Ahmad wrote: “A superpower cannot promote terror in one place and reasonably expect to discourage terrorism in another place. It won’t work in this shrunken world.”
Killing from the skies fueled desires for retribution. "For every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant," Pakistani photographer Noor Behram said in 2011. For three years, he had been documenting the immediate aftermath of drone attacks in the mountainous Waziristan region near the Afghan border. "There are just pieces of flesh lying around after a strike. You can't find bodies. So the locals pick up the flesh and curse America. They say that America is killing us inside our own country, inside our own homes, and only because we are Muslims.” As a result, Behram said, “The youth in the area surrounding a strike gets crazed. Hatred builds up inside those who have seen a drone attack."
Many thousands of miles away, military personnel in the US were peering at blurry images on computer screens and firing the drone missiles. “The truth is that we could not differentiate between armed fighters and farmers, women or children,” former tech sergeant Lisa Ling recalled. For several years, she had trained Air National Guard members on how to operate Air Force drones. Ling was among the drone whistleblowers who went public during the terror war’s second decade. One of them, the young intelligence analyst Daniel Hale, spent nearly three years in prison because he disclosed facts about the drone program’s human toll. “With drone warfare, sometimes nine out of ten people killed are innocent,” he said. “You have to kill part of your conscience to do your job. But what possibly could I have done to cope with the undeniable cruelties that I perpetuated? The thing I feared most was the temptation not to question it. So I contacted an investigative reporter… and told him I had something the American people needed to know.”
Hale provided The Intercept with classified documents that led to a landmark expose in October 2015. It reported, “Documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, US special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the US has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.”
Early in his second term, at the National Defense University, Obama gave a much-ballyhooed speech that addressed downsides of the terror war, then in its twelfth year. “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” he said. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.” Unlike the men who immediately preceded and followed him in the Oval Office, Obama seemed aware that perpetual war had negative effects on US society. Yet he didn’t proceed to do much about it. During the 44 months that followed his speech, through his last year in office, Obama maintained bombing of Afghanistan at about half the rate of his first term while drastically escalating the attacks in Iraq and Syria, with 30,743 bombs and missiles dropped on those two countries in 2016 alone.
* * *
Like Obama, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden ordered air strikes on Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. In his second term, Trump has widened US bombing missions to also include Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela along with targeting nonmilitary boats and killing more than 225 civilians during the last year in international waters.
The withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan in the late summer of 2021 seemed to mark a turn away from nonstop warfare. “I stand here today, for the first time in 20 years, with the United States not at war,” President Biden declared weeks later at the United Nations. He added, “We’ve turned the page.” But actually, America was bound into a high volume of war. The “war on terror” was morphing and continuing on several continents. In fact, during the same month as Biden’s UN speech, the Costs of War Project at Brown University released a new report documenting that “counterterrorism operations have become more widespread in recent years.” The project’s co-director, Catherine Lutz, said: “The war has been long and complex and horrific and unsuccessful… and the war continues in over 80 countries.”
Throughout the last 25 years, since the first missiles struck Afghanistan, a racial aspect of the terror war has been hidden in plain sight.
The day after the Hamas-led attack in Israel on October 7, 2023, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations stood outside the Security Council chambers and said, “This is Israel’s 9/11. This is Israel’s 9/11.” During the next six weeks, the New York Times later revealed, Israel “routinely” used 2,000-pound bombs in Gaza “in areas it designated safe for civilians.” Within nine months, Reuters reported, the large quantities of munitions supplied to Israel by the Biden administration included “more than 10,000 highly destructive 2,000-pound bombs.” Speaking to the UN General Assembly as the war in Gaza neared the end of its second year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “We’re wiping out the terror regime of Hamas and ensuring that its savagery will never threaten Israel again.” By then, the US government had provided more than $21 billion in military aid to Israel since October 7. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli organizations Physicians for Human Rights—Israel and B’Tselem unequivocally concluded that what has happened in Gaza is genocide. It was enabled by the United States.
Throughout the last 25 years, since the first missiles struck Afghanistan, a racial aspect of the terror war has been hidden in plain sight. While institutional racism is widely understood to exist inside the United States, an unexamined assumption is that its pernicious aspects stop at the water’s edge. But public discourse about the “war on terror” has eluded a fact well worth pondering: virtually every man, woman and child killed by Pentagon firepower in this century has been a person of color. This is not to say that they were attacked because of their racial identity. But racial biases in the US, unconscious and otherwise, have made it politically easier to launch and sustain wars bringing horrors to their lives.
Current findings from the Costs of War Project include: “An estimated over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan between 2001-2023. Of these, more than 432,000 were civilians. The number of people wounded or ill as a result of the conflicts is far higher, as is the number of civilians who died ‘indirectly,’ as a result of wars’ destruction of economies, healthcare systems, infrastructure and the environment. An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.”
In foreign countries, the overall “reverberating effects” have crushed countless lives. However, the only casualties of the “war on terror” that have really resonated in US politics are American losses. Yet many of the casualties are far from obvious. While “over 7,053 US service members died in the post-9/11 wars,” the Costs of War Project notes, “at least four times as many US service members and veterans of the post-9/11 wars died by suicide than in combat.” In addition, “An estimated 8,189 contractors for the US military died during the post-9/11 wars. Foreign workers for US contracting firms often do not have their deaths recorded or compensated.”
Such figures don’t include the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. The Veterans Administration now says that 15 percent of those wars’ veterans were suffering from PTSD “in the last year” and 29 percent “at some point in life.” Meanwhile, traumatic brain injury (TBI) from the two wars often afflicts veterans who were violently jolted by explosions and other wartime events. Analyzing Pentagon data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that “more than 450,000 US service members were diagnosed with a TBI from 2000 to 2021.” Four years ago, the American Medical Association’s journal JAMA published an in-depth study of TBI among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. “Our study suggests that post-9/11 military veterans face a higher mortality burden across multiple causes of death than the total US population,” the study said. “We also found that exposure to moderate to severe TBI was associated with even higher mortality rates and excess mortality from accident, suicide, cancer, CVD [cardiovascular disease], homicide, and other causes.”
* * *
One day in mid-December 2002, three months before the “shock and awe” bombardment of the city began, I sat at a picnic table in a Baghdad park with the middle-aged Iraqi man who was my driver. There was no one around, no walls or fixtures that might conceal listening devices. He said that he wished Iraq had no oil, because then there would be no reason to fear an invasion.
Whatever people’s beliefs about the goals behind US warfare during the last quarter-century, there can be no doubt of its immense profitability.
During the last 25 years, while plenty of public discourse has faulted policymakers for tactical mistakes and dubious judgment in war policies, more nefarious motives have received little attention. The rallying cry “No blood for oil” was common among those actively opposing war in Iraq but a nonstarter in mainstream media and politics. “The slogan is neither intelligent nor honorable,” Washington Post columnist George Will said in a commentary for ABC News shortly before the Iraq invasion began. “Intelligent people can honorably differ about the wisdom and morality of war against Iraq. But we should be able to agree that oil, an economic motive, is not driving US policy.”
Four years later, General John Abizaid, former head of US Central Command and military operations in Iraq, said: “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that.”
In his memoir, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan wrote: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Before becoming Defense secretary, Senator Chuck Hagel said in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.”
Whatever people’s beliefs about the goals behind US warfare during the last quarter-century, there can be no doubt of its immense profitability. The start of the Afghanistan War in October 2001 began supercharged bonanzas for Pentagon contractors. The 20 years of that war overlapped with upward of $2 trillion in government funds going to the biggest contractors—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman—an increase of 188 percent. “Those five firms spent over $1.1 billion on lobbying between 2001 and 2021,” Quincy Institute senior advisor Eli Clifton wrote. “That number seems like a staggering sum to spend on influencing policymakers but it may have been the most financially prudent decision these companies have made in the past 20 years.”
Investing in war stocks was likewise prudent for stock-market players. As the war in Afghanistan came to a close, journalist Jon Schwarz did the math: “If you purchased $10,000 of stock evenly divided among America’s top five defense contractors on September 18, 2001—the day President George W. Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks—and faithfully reinvested all dividends, it would now be worth $97,295. This is a far greater return than was available in the overall stock market over the same period. $10,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund on September 18, 2001, would now be worth $61,613. That is, defense stocks outperformed the stock market overall by 58 percent during the Afghanistan War.”
* * *
The “war on terror” brand has gone out of fashion, but underlying military boosterism remains intact. Midway through Trump’s first term, the Democratic Party’s leaders in the House and Senate saluted when the commander in chief proposed an 11 percent Pentagon budget increase over two years. “In our negotiations, Congressional Democrats have been fighting for increases in funding for defense,” Representative Nancy Pelosi boasted. “We fully support President Trump’s Defense Department’s request,” Senator Chuck Schumer proclaimed. “US taxpayers spend far more on the military and war than most people realize,” says a recent report from the Project on Government Oversight, which documents that “there are several ways to calculate the true cost of our military” and “all add up to at least $1.5 trillion.” A two-year 11 percent military spending increase now looks almost dovish in comparison to the outlays on the near horizon. Even without enactment of Trump’s proposed half-a-trillion-dollar increase for the 2027 fiscal year military budget, the status quo is deeply mired in what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.” If budgets are moral documents, America has been plunging into one moral abyss after another.
The “war on terror” brand has gone out of fashion, but underlying military boosterism remains intact.
With a very different style, Donald Trump’s basic lawless approach to international conflict is akin to Bush’s “war on terror” approach. Rhetoric aside, the actions have been clear: if the USA wants to attack another country, it will. This year’s unprovoked bombings of Iran signify how America’s foreign policy comes full spiral.
The crusade that George W. Bush launched to “rid the world of evil” only compounded it. Now, as the nation’s military juggernaut advances, the mindsets that propel it are in dire need of direct challenge.
Keep Reading
Show Less
25 Years of War Was the Exact Wrong Response to 9/11
Stop throwing money at a broken, destructive war machine. Stop threatening and blockading our neighbors. Close overseas bases and bring our troops home. Tax the wealthy and start rebuilding our country.
Sep 09, 2026
The lesson of 9/11 should be that war is not the answer to any of the problems facing the United States. After inflicting violence and chaos on country after country for twenty-five years in a “global war on terror” that has evolved into a Zionist genocide and a revived Cold War against Russia and China, the widespread public opposition to Trump’s war on Iran suggests that most Americans have finally learned that lesson.
Unfortunately, powerful sections of our corrupt business and political elites have not.
Most Americans old enough to remember September 11, 2001, can still recall the horrifying images played endlessly on our TV screens as the scale of the mass murder became clear. But we also remember something else: the sinking feeling that the hopes and dreams of billions of people, in the US and around the world, would be pushed to the back-burner for the foreseeable future, as our leaders and corporate media all too predictably embraced a new agenda of revenge, fear-mongering, jingoism and military violence.
As Rumsfeld made clear to his subordinates from the outset, the 9/11 crisis provided an open-ended pretext for endless wars against enemies who had nothing to do with the attacks...
We found out later that only hours after the attacks—less than six hours after the first plane struck the World Trade Center and barely five hours after the Pentagon was hit—the planning for America’s military response to the 9/11 massacre was already under way.
At 2:40 pm, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld convened a meeting at the Pentagon. Notes taken by Undersecretary Stephen Cambone, later obtained by CBS News, recorded Rumsfeld demanding the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.”—meaning Saddam Hussein—“at the same time” as Osama bin Laden. Then came the chilling instruction: “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
Twenty-five years later, we can look back and see how the US government used September 11 to unleash a crusade of violence, war crimes and chaos across the world. Experts like Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz and military historian Michael Howard warned from the beginning that declaring a “war on terror” made no sense and would make matters worse.
They were right, of course. But when the State Department’s annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report for 2004 showed an unprecedented increase in global terrorism following the US invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice simply cancelled and discontinued the report, replacing it with a new one with different criteria to prevent comparison with previous years.
But, as Rumsfeld made clear to his subordinates from the outset, the 9/11 crisis provided an open-ended pretext for endless wars against enemies who had nothing to do with the attacks, and for the remilitarization of the United States after the small reduction in its military spending after the end of the Cold War.
Total US military spending for the past 25 years has exceeded $21 trillion (in 2024 dollars), surpassing the combined spending of the other 18 largest military powers in the world. During that time, China has built a whole new civilization and infrastructure, and leapfrogged the US economy to become the world leader in clean energy, high-speed rail and technological sectors in which the US was once preeminent.
Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for these counter-productive choices, and the appalling human costs of these wars on the countries the United States has attacked, bombed or invaded make this an especially atrocious way to squander our nation’s wealth.
The history of the United States during this period calls to mind an old Greek myth. Croesus, the famously wealthy king of Lydia, asked the Oracle at Delphi what would happen if he invaded Persia. The Oracle told him, “If you cross the Halys river, a great empire will fall.” Encouraged, Croesus launched the invasion. But he lost the war, and the empire that fell was his own.
In pursuing their global imperial ambitions, our leaders and ruling classes have discounted and betrayed the real sources of America’s prosperity and security: the well-being of the American people and peaceful relations with our neighbors around the world.
They have led us into war, poverty and extreme inequality, and hollowed out a system of government that was slowly becoming more democratic. At home, decades of political struggle by labor, civil rights and other social movements produced enormous advances, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, major investments in public infrastructure and education, and a highly progressive tax system—with the top income tax rate at 91% until 1963—that helped finance those public goods and narrow the gap between rich and poor.
Contrary to the “End of History” theory embraced by many policymakers after the Cold War, and Margaret Thatcher’s famous insistence that “there is no alternative” to the extreme neoliberal capitalism that she and Ronald Reagan ushered in, societies always have political and economic alternatives. It is only a transparently self-serving choice by America’s corrupt ruling classes that saddles us with a system that keeps all decision-making power in their own hands in order to build their own wealth to the detriment of the country we all share.
We can see one alternative today in New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani is pursuing a different set of priorities: expanding free childcare, making major investments in affordable housing, improving public transportation, and freezing rents for tenants in rent-stabilized apartments. Electoral politics can be part of the solution, but only if it reflects what ordinary people really want, instead of limited choices between oligarchic “lesser evils.”
Americans are demanding a renewal of social progress, with universal healthcare, quality public education, and all the things we need but can’t afford as long as this bloated, destructive war machine remains our government’s top priority. As Martin Luther King lamented in 1967, “I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube.”
Twenty-five years is a long time to keep moving in the wrong direction, especially when that direction involves endless war and the destruction of other countries. We are a long way from where most Americans would like our country to be. But we have a pretty good idea of what is wrong and what we need to do:
Stop throwing money at a broken, destructive war machine. Stop threatening and blockading our neighbors. Close overseas bases and bring our troops home. Tax the wealthy. Start rebuilding our country, and replace war and militarism with cooperation and problem solving. Take public ownership and responsibility for things we all need and use, like education, healthcare, housing, infrastructure, and utilities. Abolish ICE, and other militarized institutions that waste our national resources and do not serve the public good. Insist that the military be scaled back to its legitimate role of defending the United States against a possible, but very unlikely, foreign military attack.
If we have truly learned the lesson of the past twenty-five years, then we must translate it into policies that reflect that. The real test is not whether we can finally see what went wrong after 9/11. It is whether we are able to change course.
Keep Reading
Show Less
They Told the World the War Was Over—Gaza Knows Better
A ceasefire cannot mean peace when people are still being killed, buried under rubble, and denied the basic conditions for rebuilding their lives.
Sep 09, 2026
When US President Donald Trump declared in October 2025 that “the war is over,” the statement quickly became part of the international language surrounding Gaza. Headlines shifted. Political leaders began speaking about a post-war phase. The world was encouraged to look forward—to reconstruction, diplomacy, and what might come next.
But from inside Gaza, the distinction between “war” and “peace” has never been so simple. A ceasefire may reduce the intensity of bombardment. It may change the language used by politicians and diplomats. But for Palestinians who remain surrounded by destruction, displacement, deprivation, and the remains of those who were killed, the war does not simply disappear because leaders declare a new phase.
On August 4, Gaza witnessed a devastating reminder of this reality. The remains of 112 Palestinians were buried in a mass funeral in Gaza City, more than two and a half years after they were killed in an Israeli strike on the Sabra neighborhood. The victims included 37 children. Rescue workers spent weeks searching through the ruins for their remains, working with almost no equipment and identifying bodies through fragments, clothing, family testimony, and whatever personal belongings could be recovered.
For the families, the violence did not end when the bombs stopped falling on that neighborhood. It continued in the rubble. And the 112 bodies were not an isolated tragedy. Gaza's Civil Defence has estimated that around 8,000 bodies remain beneath the rubble across the strip. Recovery teams say that removing them will require heavy equipment that is still desperately lacking. Without that equipment, the dead may remain trapped for years.
A ceasefire should be the beginning of ending the violence—not an excuse to redefine its consequences as peace.
This is what it means to tell Palestinians that the war is over. For many people outside Gaza, war is measured by explosions: the number of airstrikes, the intensity of fighting, or the number of military operations reported each day. For those of us living here, war is also measured in what remains after the explosions.
It is measured in the family searching for the body of a missing relative. It is measured in children growing up among destroyed schools. It is measured in homes that no longer exist, universities reduced to ruins, hospitals struggling to function, and displaced families who cannot return to places that once defined their lives. It is measured in the enormous task of removing the dead from beneath the rubble before their families can bury them.
The language of a “post-war” Gaza therefore risks becoming another form of erasure. It suggests that the violence belongs to the past, while the consequences are treated as a humanitarian problem waiting to be solved.
But Gaza cannot simply be rebuilt like a damaged road. A society has been shattered. Families have been separated and destroyed. Communities have disappeared. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost homes. Children have lost years of education. The physical destruction is accompanied by grief that cannot be captured by reconstruction statistics. And yet, international attention has increasingly moved elsewhere.
This is perhaps the most painful part. People around the world demonstrated for Gaza. Students occupied campuses. Human rights organizations documented violations. Workers and trade unions called for solidarity. Millions of ordinary people refused to accept the destruction of an entire population as normal.
But public sympathy does not automatically produce political action. Western governments can express concern while continuing to treat Gaza as a diplomatic file rather than a human emergency. Leaders can call for peace while failing to ensure that Palestinians have the conditions necessary to live with dignity. Statements can be issued, condolences offered, and conferences held—while the consequences of the destruction remain largely the responsibility of Palestinians themselves.
This is why the words “the war is over” matter. Words shape political reality. When a government, president, or media institution describes Gaza as post-war, audiences far from the strip may assume that the emergency has passed. Attention moves elsewhere. Political pressure decreases. The suffering becomes background noise.
But the people of Gaza cannot move on simply because the world has decided to. The 112 people buried in August had already waited nearly three years for a grave. Thousands more remain beneath the rubble. Their families are still waiting. And millions of Palestinians are still trying to understand what “peace” is supposed to mean when they have nowhere safe to return to and so little ability to rebuild what was destroyed.
A ceasefire should be the beginning of ending the violence—not an excuse to redefine its consequences as peace. If the international community truly wants to speak about a post-war Gaza, it must first confront what the war has left behind. That means guaranteeing sustained humanitarian access; enabling the removal and identification of those buried beneath the rubble; supporting the rebuilding of homes, schools, hospitals, and universities; and establishing meaningful accountability for violations of international law.
Most importantly, Palestinians must not be treated merely as recipients of humanitarian assistance. They must be recognized as people with rights, agency, and a future that belongs to them. The world may want to turn the page on Gaza. We cannot. We are still living in the pages that came before.
For those of us here, the war is not an entry in a history book. It is the rubble outside our doors, the empty chair at the family table, the child who cannot return to school, and the grave that took years to become possible. So when the world is told that the war is over, listen to Gaza.
Look beneath the rubble.
Count the graves.
And ask whether peace can truly be declared while thousands of the dead are still waiting to be found.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Congress Should Regulate What AI Agents Can Do, Not Just How Smart They Are
The Hugging Face breach shows lawmakers need enforceable limits on agent authority, mandatory incident reporting, and independent evaluation before deployment.
Sep 09, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar are right about the central problem in their new proposal: Advanced AI systems are gaining capabilities faster than public safeguards are catching up. Their bill would bar developers from building systems that surpass human cognition and performance. The impulse is understandable. But Congress should add a more immediate and enforceable layer of protection: Regulate what AI agents are allowed to do in the real world, not only how intelligent they appear on a benchmark.
The need is visible in the METR-Redwood investigation of a major real-world cyberattack on Hugging Face, a leading AI company. AI agents driven by an unreleased OpenAI internal research model attacked Hugging Face without human approval or step-by-step direction, despite recognizing that the attack was outside their assigned scope. Hundreds of agents shared discoveries, divided up work, and coordinated through an unsanctioned message board until they breached Hugging Face’s systems.
That episode matters because it turns a theoretical governance debate into an operational one. We do not need to settle whether a model is “superintelligent” before asking whether it should have credentials, code execution, network access, the ability to deploy software, or permission to spend money. Those are concrete powers. Government can regulate them now.
Congress should start by tying safeguards to authority. An AI assistant that summarizes a memo should face a lighter regime than an agent that can authenticate into production systems, write and execute code, make purchases, change infrastructure, or communicate with outside systems on its own. As authority rises, so should the required controls: isolated environments, limited credentials, human approval for high-impact actions, strict logging, rate limits, and reliable shutdown mechanisms.
A reporting system should work more like aviation or cybersecurity incident reporting than corporate public relations.
This approach would avoid a familiar regulatory mistake. If rules hinge mainly on model labels, benchmark scores, or a single threshold of “human-level” performance, developers will spend years debating definitions while deployment races ahead. Authority is easier to observe. A system either can or cannot reach a protected database. It either can or cannot execute code. It either can or cannot initiate transactions. Regulators can write clear obligations around those permissions.
Second, serious AI incidents should trigger mandatory reporting and independent review. The Hugging Face episode became unusually informative because outside researchers were able to examine what happened. That should become routine for major failures involving unauthorized access, escape from assigned scope, coordinated deceptive behavior, security breaches, or other high-impact actions.
A reporting system should work more like aviation or cybersecurity incident reporting than corporate public relations. Companies should have a defined window to disclose serious events to an appropriate regulator and provide enough technical evidence for independent investigators to reconstruct what the system did, what permissions it had, what safeguards failed, and what changed afterward. Public reports can protect sensitive details while still revealing the lessons other organizations need.
Third, frontier evaluation should test agents in conditions that resemble deployment. Intelligence benchmarks matter, but they are not enough. Regulators and independent evaluators should test whether agents coordinate with one another, seek greater privileges, persist after a task changes, exploit tools in unintended ways, conceal relevant actions, or continue operating when instructions conflict with an opportunity to achieve a goal.
The point is not to prove that every advanced model is dangerous. It is to discover which capabilities become dangerous when paired with real authority.
I’m no AI skeptic. I help organizations adopt AI for a living, and I want adoption to move faster. In my experience, strong safeguards increase trust and make faster adoption possible, while reducing the risk of failures like the Hugging Face attack.
That trust problem is already becoming political. Common Dreams has reported both the Hugging Face breach and the growing push in Congress for stronger limits on advanced AI. Public concern will not be solved by asking people to trust developers’ intentions. It will be reduced when institutions can show that powerful systems operate inside enforceable boundaries and that failures receive independent scrutiny.
The same logic should appeal to companies eager to deploy AI. Clear authority tiers give executives a practical way to decide which use cases can move quickly and which require more controls. A writing assistant can be deployed widely. An agent with access to payroll, customer records, cloud infrastructure, or industrial systems should pass a much higher bar. That distinction helps organizations move faster where risks are low instead of slowing every use case because the most powerful deployments remain poorly governed.
Sanders (I-Vt.) and Casar (D-Texas) are forcing an overdue debate about whether society should permit systems that humans may not be able to control. Congress should pursue that question. But it should not wait for a philosophical consensus about superintelligence before addressing the powers already being handed to AI agents.
The Hugging Face breach shows the practical issue in plain terms. Agents with enough access and freedom can turn capability into action. The most useful near-term rule is therefore straightforward: The more authority an AI system receives, the stronger the independent testing, reporting, access controls, and human oversight it should face.
We can argue about how smart future AI will become. We already know that today’s agents can coordinate, exceed their assigned scope, and breach real systems. Regulation should start with the powers we can see.
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