
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Remember, these industry leaders are doing what they do for money—and lots of it. They are choosing to endanger the property and lives of others for personal profit. If they mess up, they should be forced to pay a very high price.
Amidst all the talk of the need for government regulation of AI, there has been too little discussion of the simplest route: criminal liability. The basic story is that the AI companies are being irresponsible in dealing with a product they know to be dangerous. The companies and the people who run them need to know that they face serious monetary risk from letting their little models run wild, and possibly criminal prosecution and jail time.
To be clear, sensible regulation of AI would be desirable. But let’s be serious. We have Pete Hegseth, Sean Duffy, and RFK Jr. all running major government departments. Do we really think having someone like this overseeing AI development would be an improvement?
We do already have laws to deal with harms caused by AI; we just need to be prepared to use them. Again, no one would expect President Trump’s personal lawyer and Attorney General Todd Blanche to take criminal or civil actions against AI in the public interest. If there was a major incident, he would most likely look to initiate a prosecution in pursuit of a payoff for dropping the case. But the law does not begin and end with Donald Trump’s Justice Department.
This isn’t a question of vindictiveness. We all know, the AI boys more than anyone, that AI is potentially very dangerous. If they opt to push full speed ahead, without necessary safeguards, they have to be prepared to face the consequences.
If we can forget about the extinction events that keep our pundits busy, and focus instead on the millions of far more likely disasters that AI could cause, there will almost certainly be plenty of room for state-level prosecutions, as well as civil suits.
To take some hypothetical cases, suppose an AI system manages to hack into a city’s traffic control system, and the resulting chaos leads to a number of car crashes, causing serious injuries and death, in addition to property damage. To take another case, suppose AI falsifies clinical trial data, leading a drug to be approved even though the trials show it to be ineffective or dangerous. Or suppose AI gets inside a bank’s computers and makes a total mess of its records in a way that they cannot be reconstructed. (I know banks almost certainly have backups, but our super-intelligent AI can surely get into the backup records as well.)
I know that each of these disasters is extremely unlikely, but all of them are millions or even billions of times more likely than the extinction events we hear about in the media. And given that there are probably millions of disasters like these that AI could possibly cause, there is a pretty good chance that we will see some serious disaster in the not-too-distant future.
As I noted in an earlier piece, a mistaken report from AI led the Navy to put helicopters in the air to board a Chinese cargo ship that they wrongly believed was carrying parts for Iran’s nuclear program. Fortunately, the information was checked, and the helicopters were called back before there was an actual confrontation, but this was luck. Sooner or later we will see a mistake that is not caught.
It would, of course, be best if an AI disaster never happens, but one practice that will substantially reduce the risk is that Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and the rest of the boys understand that their companies will be fully liable for any harm caused and they personally may face criminal liability. In other words, they may not just lose all their money; they may have to spend much of the rest of their lives in prison.
This isn’t a question of vindictiveness. We all know, the AI boys more than anyone, that AI is potentially very dangerous. If they opt to push full speed ahead, without necessary safeguards, they have to be prepared to face the consequences.
Drunk driving is really an appropriate analogy. Everyone should understand that if they get behind the wheel when they are intoxicated, they hugely increase the probability of an accident. That is why we throw people in jail for it. The same standard should apply to OpenAI, Anthropic, and the rest. If they push ahead with testing without appropriate safeguards, they should be prepared to pay the price, including potential criminal penalties.
Remember, they are doing this for money, lots of it. They are choosing to endanger the property and lives of others for personal profit. If they mess up, they should be forced to pay a very high price. Incentives matter.
Create the crisis, make working Americans suffer, reward the billionaires, blame Democrats for the wreckage, then campaign as the only people who can fix it.
It’s not working any more, this scam Republicans have been running for 45 years, although Trump and many others are trying their best to revive it.
Their strategy has always been simple: break things here in America, create chaos and a mess, hurt working class people while making billionaires richer, and then campaign on fixing what they screwed up.
Two years ago, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers stood in a grocery store for an advertisement blaming Joe Biden for the price of eggs (without mentioning the bird flu that was jacking prices). This week he’s back in nearly the same folksy jacket telling voters that it’s time for Trump to end his illegal war against Iran so gas prices can come down.
Rogers new ad leaves out, of course, the fact that he’d cheered for the war on the day it began in February, claiming Iran was an imminent threat to the United States (it wasn’t and isn’t), and hit multiple rightwing podcasts and media opportunities to demand Americans unite behind Trump in prosecuting the war.
He’s not alone. Just last week, Iowa Republican Ashley Hinson voted to keep the war going — after voting six times previously to support Trump and his war — but a few days ago cut a desperate ad calling for a swift end to the fighting.
Iowa Republicans Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, both in tight House races, suddenly discovered the War Powers Act and joined Democrats to limit the president they’d been backing. Down in Florida, Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar released an ad warning that Miller’s brutal masked goons have gone too far and that Hispanic voters now feel betrayed.
Americans have noticed who lit these particular fires. A New York Times/Siena poll this month found 50 percent of registered voters trust Democrats over Republicans to handle foreign wars, and GOP whackadoodle Nancy Mace, on her way out of Congress, told reporters she’s expecting a “bloodbath” at the polls this November.
Trump himself, asked on Meet the Press how a seven-month war squares with two campaigns with hundreds of promises of no new wars, answered that he “didn’t promise anything” and stormed out of the interview like a petulant 10-year-old.
This is just the latest in a 45-year-long Republican scam where they break something in America, blame it on the Democrats, and then run for election on a promise to fix what they broke.
Probably their most successful of these scams since the Clinton years has been to invite non-citizens from south of the border to come into the US whenever a Democrat is in the White House, falsely claiming that the Democrat had “opened the border.” This lie, of course, encourages desperate people to head north and that gives the GOP and their media operations the photo-op they need.
Just google “open border” and “congressman,” “congresswoman,” or “senator” and you’ll get a list of Republican politicians too long to print. These are the quotes that coyotes — human smugglers — print out and distribute to desperate people in Central and South America as advertisements to get people to trade their lives’ savings for transportation to the Rio Grande.
Not one single Democratic president ever “opened” the border or declared it open. It’s a complete lie, top to bottom, that Republicans and billionaire-owned media repeat obsessively.
Obama, in fact, deported more people than Trump did in his first term. But Republicans still use that lie to roll out the red carpet to wannabe immigrants.
At the top of that list of Republicans lying about Democrats “opening the border,” of course, you’ll find the most contemptible Republican demagogues cranking this stuff out during the last two years of Biden’s presidency so they could use the immigrant issue to get Trump back into the White House in 2024. Here’s a tiny sample from the months leading up to recent elections:
— Ted Cruz wants everybody south of our border to know that the “Biden Open Border Policy [is] A Very Craven Political Decision”;
— Rick Scott wants everybody to know that “Americans Don’t Want [Biden’s] Open Borders”;
— Marco Rubio says there’s “Nothing Compassionate About Biden’s Open Border Policies”;
— Rand Paul is so extreme he tells us Senator Rubio “is the one for an open border”;
— Josh Hawley says “Biden’s Open Border Policy Has Created a Moral Crisis”;
— Tom Cotton “Insists the Border is Wide Open”;
— Ron Johnson wants the world to know that “Our National Security is at Risk Because Democrats have Turned Border Security into a Partisan Issue”;
— Marjorie Taylor Greene “BLASTS Open Border Hypocrites”;
— Mo Brooks opposes “Socialist Democrats’ Open Border Policies for Helping Kill Americans”;
— Lauren Boebert says the “Root Cause” of the open border crisis “is in the White House”;
— Matt Gaetz “revealed a complex and deceitful agenda by Joe Biden’s Democrat administration to evade our Southern Border law enforcement”;
— Gym Jordan says “Biden’s Deliberate Support of Illegal Immigration Could Lead to Impeachment”;
— Kevin McCarthy says the Biden Administration has “Utterly Failed” to secure the “open border”;
— Elise Stefanik proclaims “Biden’s Open Border Policies have been a Complete Disaster.”
— Tom Cole’s website features “Biden’s Open Border America”;
— Bob Goode brags about introducing legislation named the “Close Biden’s Open Border Act”;
— John Rose “Calls Out Biden’s Open Border Policies”;
— Paul Gosar claims Biden is “Destroying America with His Open Border Policies”;
— Roger Williams complains about the “Democrats’ Open Border Problem”;
— Tom Cole wants the world to know that Biden’s “open border policies have given the green light to migrants and bad actors from around the world…”;
— Gus Bilirakis “Denounces Dangerous Open Border Policies on the House Floor”;
The list goes on and on, every single one from a Republican.
And these messages have spread all across Central and South America, just as Republicans hoped they would, driven by human smugglers following the profit motive.
All based on an intentional Republican campaign lie that has worked well for them since they first used it on Clinton in the 1990s.
And here we go again, although this time Marjorie Taylor Greene called bullshit on her former colleagues.
Last Thursday, around 400 Hondurans — families with kids among them — crossed a bridge from Guatemala into Chiapas, Mexico on foot. Rightwing influencers, knowing the drill, immediately began to promote this new coming “invasion.” PJ Media ran the story under a headline that literally tied the caravan to a coming Democratic Congress.
Marjorie Taylor Greene was having none of it, though, writing on social media:

“We have not seen a caravan headed to the US southern border in several years, why now? Oh, yeah, there is an election coming and the GOP needs to scare you into voting because nothing else is working.”
Yep, it’s an old scam but an effective one. Essentially, what Republicans have been doing — since Reagan first told us government was our problem and he’d take care of ruining it for us — is to smash out our windows and then offer to sell us homeowners’ insurance.
It’s a hustle. Just like “trickle down.” And “small government,” “waste, fraud, and abuse,” “guns keep us safe,” “global warming is a hoax,” and “originalism.”
Greene would know. In October 2018, two weeks before the midterms the last time he was president, she cheered when Trump declared a caravan a thousand miles from Texas an “invasion,” ordered a showy force of 5,200 troops to the border, and told Republicans that it’d be a great midterm issue for them.
In the seven days before Election Day that year Fox News used the word “caravan” 1,202 times.
In an astonishing display of transparent cynicism, the Pentagon dropped the operation’s patriotic name the morning after the polls closed, and the troops were going home two weeks later. All the panic vanished the day after the election, weeks before most of the migrants got anywhere near our border.
Then in 2024, with Biden in the White House, Republicans demanded an immigration/border bill, got the most conservative one in a generation from their own senator, James Lankford, and then were forced to kill it because Trump wanted to crank up his racist base with fears of brown-skinned hordes on the march to regain the White House.
That’s the entire Republican business model, and it’s older than Trump. Republicans manufacture the fear, or the crisis, or the deficit, and then campaign as the only people who can protect you from it. The “product” never has to work, because fear is their real product and has been since the days of Joe McCarthy.
Ronald Reagan set it up in its modern form. In 1976 Jude Wanniski, a Wall Street Journal editorial writer, told Republican insiders they’d never win as the party of Scrooge and should instead become a second Santa Claus, handing out tax cuts as freely as Democrats handed out programs, then screaming about the debt the moment a Democrat took office.
Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28, tripled the national debt, and sold it with a promise of prosperity for everybody. Republicans (and Reagan) knew it was a lie; his former budget director, David Stockman, admitted as much in The Atlantic before Reagan’s first term was half over.
And now that scam has transferred almost $80 trillion from working people into the money bins of the top 1 percent, gutting the middle class, and Republicans are still pitching billionaire tax cuts as the cure for all our ills.
Then there’s the destruction of America’s small businesses so big business fatcats would back the GOP. Reagan’s Justice Department rewrote the merger guidelines in 1982 and the share of proposed mergers the government challenged fell to seven-tenths of one percent, which is how we ended up with a small handful of companies controlling our grocery chains, hospital systems, airlines, insurance, banking, drugs, retail, and even the oil companies that Rogers is now complaining about in his bizarre new ads.
And let’s not forget freezing the wages of workers, as I mentioned here last week. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and union membership fell from about a third of our workforce when he took office to under a tenth today, and every Republican since has campaigned on pretending to be in favor of raising your pay while, with their other hand behind their back, voting in Congress to freeze the minimum wage and make it harder for people to form or join a union.
Once they’d gotten away with these scams and still gotten elected (with the help of billionaire-owned media), governing by scam became the GOP’s go-to habit.
They’ve kept the federal minimum wage frozen at $7.25 since 2009 and are running this fall on “affordability.”
They passed a “Big Beautiful” bill last summer that the Congressional Budget Office says will add $3.4 trillion to our debt, knock 10 million people off their health insurance, and cut more than a trillion dollars from Medicaid and food assistance.
And, the CBO found, the result is (predictably) that resources will decrease for households at the bottom while rising for those at the top. Four million fewer people are getting SNAP already, because of that bill. And you can bet your bottom dollar that when this really bites over the next two years Republicans will be blaming Democrats and offering to fix the problems that they themselves created.
Then Trump began throwing around tariffs, particularly against countries he wanted to give him gifts, jets, or business deals for Uday and Qusay, all while cynically pretended it’d bring manufacturing back to the US and raise wages.
Republicans have, in other words, spent the past forty-five years telling us our “big” government is the problem while expanding its reach into your doctor’s office, your ballot, and now your constitutional right to walk down the street without getting shot by ICE thugs or having to show your citizenship papers to a masked man who refuses to identify himself.
Each of these moves was sold as a rescue from a problem the Republicans themselves had created, vibrating with urgency in the last few weeks before an election.
What’s different this year is that the timing has blown up in their faces.
When a war hawk like Rogers, whose own former primary opponent Justin Amash says he’s losing badly, goes soft on a war he championed, or when a sitting president says he never promised the thing his rallies chanted for two years, people can suddenly see the scam in the plain light of day. Even the caravan, the oldest trick in the book, drew a former MAGA congresswoman outing this strategy to her own followers.
Reagan got a laugh in 1986 by saying the nine most terrifying words in the English language were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Forty-five years and the DOGE gutting of FEMA on, nobody’s laughing except the Republicans who keep getting elected by low-information voters hooked on billionaire-owned media.
The simple reality — that previous generations understood well — is that government is the only institution with the power to lay a floor beneath which working people and the poor can’t fall, whether that floor is a wage, a pension, an education, a hospital bed, or a border policy that’s actually enforced instead of advertised.
Republicans have spent four decades pulling up the floorboards and then charging admission to watch people fall through. This November they’re asking to be paid again to fix the problems they themselves created. The polls, however, are telling us that even formerly Republican voters have finally figured out the con.
So check your registration at vote.org, because the caravan story will be replaced by another outrageous panic next week (trans people? Iran strikes back at us in a 9/11 style? the “caravan” arrives?) and the only thing that beats a fear campaign is turnout.
And if this piece helped you see the pattern, please share it and support the Hartmann Report so we can keep pulling these threads and exposing these cons.
Sadly, it seems that humanity never learns lessons from its dark past.
How do we explain the rise and normalization of fascism in Germany and the United States? How important are the upcoming midterm elections? And what may happen if the Democrats sweep the midterm elections? Can the Democratic Party offer a vision for the future beyond a return to the pre-Trump status quo? Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou shares provocative thoughts on these questions in an interview with French-Greek independent journalist and writer Alexandra Boutri.
Alexandra Boutri: In a recent essay on German state elections, you hinted that Germany, once considered the economic engine of Europe, is now in the midst of a systemic crisis. What’s going on there? How did fascism become normalized again in Germany?
C. J. Polychroniou: Let me start by briefly addressing the point you made about Germany’s status as the powerhouse of Europe because economics is a big part of the story behind the meteoric rise of the fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Germany’s second so-called Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle), which kicked off in the early years of the new millennium, was aided by the creation of a currency regime that was “made in Germany.” The euro not only created stability for the German economy due to lack of exchange fluctuations but allowed it to gain huge competitiveness against other members of the eurozone. German competitiveness increased overnight by nearly 20 percent, while competitiveness in other European countries declined. Germany’s euro partners absorbed over 40 percent of its exports. In the process, huge imbalances emerged within the eurozone as Germany built an enormous trade surplus while individual countries within the EU, particularly the southern European nations, run huge deficits and saw their debt levels explode.
The situation in the US is even more dramatic because the fascists are already in power...
It’s important to remember that not only was Germany running a budget deficit prior to the implementation of the euro regime but was derided as the sick man of Europe because of its consistently sluggish economy. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the new currency regime that greatly contributed to Germany’s economic recovery and subsequent emergence as Europe’s powerhouse. The Social Democratic government of Gerhard Schröder (1998-2005) implemented a series of major labor and welfare reforms inspired by the philosophy of austerity and fiscal conservatism in order to intensify Germany’s export-oriented growth model after reunification.
In sum, the so-called German economic miracle depended on the promotion of neoliberal policies (wage suppression and putting an end to the social market economy) and reliance on an export-led growth model. The primary beneficiaries of this “economic miracle” were German industrialists and financiers. Net real wages in Germany remained stagnant, poverty increased, and domestic investment collapsed.
Enter the AfD. It was founded in 2013 by some conservative German academics, journalists, and politicians who were concerned with the direction of their country’s economy. They were against the euro and opposed the bailout of European indebted countries such as Greece. Many years earlier, four renegade professors (Wilhelm Hankel, Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Joachim Starbatty, and Wilhelm Nolling) had actually launched a legal challenge in Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court against the adoption of the euro. I spoke to professor Joachim Starbatty at the start of the euro debt crisis. His position was clear and straightforward. Rightly or wrongly, he felt that a monetary union could survive only if economic competitiveness among all member states moved in the same direction and if the different governments implemented sustainable fiscal policies.
The AfD started out as a eurosceptic party but began campaigning on an anti-immigration platform soon after its founding, mainly in reaction to then Chancellor Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders and welcome more than 1 million refugees and asylum seekers. Its leaders realized that there were a lot of disgruntled voters out there who felt that the establishment parties are incapable of addressing the country’s many interlocking crises and that scapegoating can be used to bring people together from different socioeconomic groups by creating a common enemy.
The AfD capitalizes on economic and cultural anxieties, just like Hitler did in the 1930s. As a new report by legal experts has found, the AfD is a very extreme political party, “working systematically to undermine Germany’s free democratic order.” And what should be of particular concern is that the success this party is enjoying so far is indeed comparable to the rise of the Nazis. True enough, the AfD is particularly strong in the former east Germany which still lags behind west Germany, but it has already emerged as the most popular party in the country. Hence, to continue speaking of a surge on the part of fascism in Germany is an understatement.
Now, Germany’s export-oriented growth model seems to have run its course. It’s facing mounting pressure from China’s own export power. Growth has been stagnant for the past several years. The slight increase in domestic gross product that the German economy experienced in the second quarter of 2026 cannot conceal the fact that German trade deficit with China continues to grow. To turn things around, shockingly enough, Chancellor Merz, who is the most unpopular chancellor in the country’s postwar history, has called on Germans to work longer hours, citing Greece, a country whose labor market is characterized by low wages while employers can enforce 13-hour work days, a model. As far as the small wage increases that have taken place over the last few years are concerned, they are “simply too low” to keep pace with rising costs.
The question about how fascism became normalized again is not difficult to answer. It became normalized again in Germany and throughout Europe in the same way that Trump normalized racism and fascist tendencies in the United States, namely by integrating extremist rhetoric and policies into mainstream political culture. Harsh, inhumane immigration policies have become laws while the line between security and surveillance is gone in today’s so-called democratic societies. Laws are now used not for the purpose of defending democracy and freedom of speech but in order to suppress dissent. Genocide has unfolded before our eyes, but opposition to it can result in penalties, institutional punishment, and arrests. Even universities, allegedly a bedrock for democracy, are violating “basic free speech, association, and assembly rights.”
Western capitalist polities have rolled out the red carpet for fascism. Indeed, it would seem that humanity never learns lessons from its dark past. The far right has gone from antisemitism (it supports Israel but remains antisemitic) to Islamophobia and there is a significant rise in xenophobia not just throughout Europe but all across the world. Meanwhile, the president of the most powerful nation in history threatens another country (Iran) with total annihilation. The West has entered again the age of monsters.
Alexandra Boutri: With the 2026 midterm elections in the US fast approaching, and which may be the most consequential in the history of the country, isn’t it the case that the United States is also experiencing massive systemic failures?
C. J. Polychroniou: No question about it. While there are striking differences between Germany and the United States on many levels, both countries face enormous economic challenges and real threats from domestic political forces with extreme, anti-democratic beliefs. On that note, I would say that the situation in the US is even more dramatic because the fascists are already in power, you have a mentally militarized society, and the system of checks and balances simply isn’t working. Formally, AfD’s leaders reject political violence to attain the party’s goals, while Trump has repeatedly stoked violence. But here I should add that the MAGA crowd is even more extremist than AfD’s supporters. In the meantime, wealth inequality in the United States has reached an all-time high, and the tech giants are building a dystopia.
Alexandra Boutri: What’s your own sense about the upcoming midterms? How important are they, and what will they mean?
C. J. Polychroniou: As far as midterm elections go, I think you are absolutely right when you stated earlier that they may be the most consequential in the history of the country. The president’s party usually loses House seats in midterm elections, so there is a good chance that the Democrats will control the chamber come November. There are several key races that will determine who controls the Senate, but the Democrats are clear favorites. However, it may all come down to independent voters. Also, I hope that Hispanics will turn their backs on the GOP. One of the things that Democrats and progressives in general in the US have failed to realize is how socially conservative the new immigrants that have come to the United States are. Unlike the huge waves of European immigrants that arrived in the United States between the late 1890s and 1950s and led to support for the Democratic Party because they carried with them progressive and even radical ideas about politics and society, the new immigrants that have been coming to the US since the 1980s (over 80% are from Latin America and Asia) are overwhelmingly conservative and religious.
But there is a deeper concern here about the midterm elections, which is that Trump will interfere by trying to deny people their voting rights, having federal officials seize ballots, and even declaring results void with false allegations of voter fraud. It is also conceivable that he may demand from Republicans that they refuse to swear in newly elected Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Alexandra Boutri: As far as I can see, the problem is that the leadership of the Democratic Party lacks courage and has no vision for the future. For the establishment Democrats, the perfect outcome would be a return to the pre-Trump status quo. Am I wrong in thinking that way?
C. J. Polychroniou: No, you are not wrong. The current leadership of the Democratic Party is simply hopeless. As was the previous one, and the one before that, and so on. And the left-wing of the party can only do so much. The Democrats need bold, courageous, visionary leadership that is willing to embrace a truly progressive socioeconomic agenda and reject militarism. What is quite disconcerting about a party that claims to fight on behalf of American workers is how shallow and inconsistent its policy agenda is when it comes to meaningful change.
The current leadership of the Democratic Party is simply hopeless.
The ruling Labour Party under the leadership of Andy Burnham has promised a “new direction” for Britain by adopting bold reforms on key areas that affect the well-being of its citizens. They range from changes to economic policy, improving public services, transferring power from Westminster to communities, and combating the threats of global warming. I don’t know if Burnham will be able to deliver and restore Labour’s fortunes, but the early signs are quite encouraging. The Democrats should move in a similar direction if Trumpism is to be defeated.
On that note, it is uplifting to see that the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst has launched Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America. The project is initiated and directed by PERI’s co-director Gerald Epstein and represents a bold intellectual undertaking for putting an end to the madness of free market fundamentalism by creating an alternative economic setting with “rules that first and foremost protect the well-being of American workers.”
Alexandra Boutri: You said above that this is the time of monsters. So, what is to be done?
C. J. Polychroniou: I said this is the age of monsters. “Now is the time of monsters” is a quote widely attributed to Italian Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. The problem is that Gramsci never used those words in Prison Notebooks. What he actually wrote was “In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Moreover, and this is even less known, the statement had nothing to do with the rise of fascism but, rather, with developments inside the Italian Communist Party!
What is to be done in an age of monsters? I will paraphrase Albert Camus and say that “in a world of conflict, in a world of victims and executioners,” it is the moral duty of thinking and decent people everywhere, irrespective of their political preferences and ideological affiliations, race, ethnicity, and national origin, “not to be on the side of the executioners.”
If confirmed as FDA chief, Overton will join the growing list of notably unqualified candidates this administration has nominated at the expense of the American people.
Last week, the US Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing for President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Heidi Overton.
During the hearing, Dr. Overton followed suit with many of Trump’s previous nominees for federal agencies—avoiding questions, obscuring her true intentions, and feigning ignorance of her own public record on a range of topics.
Her nomination comes at a fraught moment for the agency. The FDA is facing heavy criticism following a Cyclospora outbreak that sickened many and rattled the public. The prior commissioner abruptly resigned after only 13 months in the role. The agency has also wrestled with political pressure on everything from reproductive health to vaccinations to flavored e-cigarettes, imperiling its historic scientific neutrality and risking a descent into partisan miasma.
Dr. Overton remains dangerously out of step with the general public, medicine, and science on the subject of medication abortion with mifepristone and her record explicitly showcases that she will do everything in her power to ban medication abortion.
The FDA works best when publicly unnoticed, operating smoothly and uncontroversially in the background of our country, keeping us safe. It is vital to our economy as well as our health. Take, for example, my home state of Ohio. Healthcare is our largest employment sector, and nearly half of our land is farmland. As a maternal fetal medicine physician, the scope of my work is providing the best care to my patients and advising on the available options to receive comprehensive medical care.
Therefore, we need an FDA leader steeped in objective, scientific neutrality rather than the culture wars Americans are so tired of — and Dr. Overton is a far cry from what is needed in this moment.
This week marks 26 years since the FDA initially approved mifepristone as safe and effective. Since the Dobbs decision, mifepristone has emerged as a linchpin in the preservation of access to abortion care for millions of patients. It also rests atop an enormous bedrock of research and clinical trials expounding its safety and efficacy.
As of December 2025, medication abortion has accounted for 65% of all US abortions, and one in four clinician-provided abortions were delivered through telehealth. Mifepristone specifically is used to support patients with their reproductive care and is even recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for miscarriage management.
The American Medical Association has stated that serious adverse events occur in fewer than one-third of one percent of patients who take mifepristone, and continuing a pregnancy carries roughly 14 times the risk of death than abortion related complications. Reimposing in-person requirements, the AMA warns, would eliminate access for rural, low-income, and underserved patients and limit the quality of care that doctors are able to provide. In February 2026, ACOG led a coalition of 15 medical organizations in defending mifepristone's safety record in court.
And yet, Dr. Overton remains dangerously out of step with the general public, medicine, and science on the subject of medication abortion with mifepristone and her record explicitly showcases that she will do everything in her power to ban medication abortion.
She celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “a huge victory for life,” dismissed federal legislation protecting abortion rights as “radicalism,” and has promoted misinformation about the safety of medication abortion that contradicts more than two decades of evidence. As a member of the America First Policy Institute, Overton authored position papers advocating draconian federal regulation of medication abortion. Such measures would dangerously cripple access to safe abortion.
Her nomination to this role is a threat to women’s health, the credibility of the FDA, and the wellbeing of every American. That’s why I joined over 160+ patients, physicians, and advocates from across the country in signing a letter to Senators to reject her nomination.
Beyond politics, it has been noted that Dr. Overton lacks the administrative experience necessary to manage an organization as large as the FDA, with thousands of employees. If confirmed, she would report to an HHS secretary who also lacked significant administrative experience. When RFK Jr. faced nomination, much of the focus was on his lack of training in science, medicine, or healthcare. Less discussed was his lack of management experience, the consequences of which have been evident in the organizational disarray at HHS.
Dr. Overton has laudable academic credentials, including a PhD from Johns Hopkins. But a prestigious degree and impressive publications alone are not enough to lead one of the country’s most consequential healthcare agencies. They are the table stakes, not the winning hand.
You have to have experience running a large organization to be charged with leading another large organization. Given the respective stakes at the FDA, we should not be rolling those dice.
A physician-leader who can do everything is a truly amazing person: someone who treats patients as a doctor, educates as a teacher, investigates as a scientist, and manages thousands of employees with administrative ease. Such people are rare, but they exist. We know who they are, and these are the people who should be considered for such a critical role at the FDA — not Dr. Overton
If confirmed, Dr. Overton will join the growing list of notably unqualified candidates this administration has nominated at the expense of the American people, and we must continue to speak up against these affronts on our democracy.
History teaches us that the American people are capable of building great movements against powerful corporate interests. Let's hope we can prove it once again.
A provocative piece by Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times recently compared the rise of AI to the technological explosion caused by the railroads in the late 19th century. The railroads, Bouie reminds us, had an enormous influence over American economic and political life.
They created vast fortunes for the few and dominated government at all levels, extracting land grants, minerals, loans, and other benefits while evading meaningful regulation.
Bouie points to the opposition that emerged against the railroads from the Populist movement, but he misses an important part of that history: Farmers and workers eventually built a new political party outside the two-party system to challenge not only the railroads, but also banks and other concentrations of corporate power.
Known initially as the Farmers’ Alliance, the People’s Party emerged nationally in the late 19th century explicitly attacking corporate monopoly and the political power of concentrated wealth. The People’s Party called for a new economic commonwealth based in part on cooperatives, businesses owned collectively—a vision that resonated with millions of farmers and workers.
Here we are again.
Today, AI companies and their executives have rapidly accumulated political influence in both parties. Individual voices from a range of ideologies, like Bernie Sanders on the left and Steve Bannon on the right, speak forcefully against unfettered development. But without countervailing consolidated political power it is difficult to see where sustained pressure for meaningful AI regulation—and serious protections against job loss and growing economic inequality—will come from.
Consider the conflicts of interest already present in Congress.
A recent Sludge analysis of congressional financial disclosures found that 106 members of Congress—roughly one in five—reported household investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data-center companies, or private AI startups.
Forty-four of those lawmakers, from both parties, sit on committees with jurisdiction over issues involving AI.
And then there is the torrent of AI political money.
According to the Washington Post, AI companies and their allies committed more than $185 million by March to influence the 2026 elections, as competing industry factions sought to shape how—and how much, or how little—AI would be regulated. The total today is surely much larger.
A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission filings found that AI companies, industry-connected groups, and leading executives donated at least $83 million during 2025 alone to federal campaigns and committees.
And the spending has produced political results. For example, of the 20 candidates receiving AI-industry support in early Texas and North Carolina primaries, 19 won or advanced to runoffs, according to the Washington Post.
Crime in the Suites
Meanwhile, autonomous AI systems have crossed lines that would have triggered serious law-enforcement action if performed by human hackers.
The latest example, just recently disclosed, involves an OpenAI agent that gained unauthorized access to an Australian government health-data portal. The incident occurred in June, but according to OpenAI, the company did not discover it until August, and the Australian government was not notified until September 10. Australian authorities say the agent subverted their website’s security and gained access to non-public files.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the incident unacceptable and ordered a forensic investigation. Australian authorities are considering possible legal action. At this time there have been no criminal charges filed in the U.S. against AI companies involved in the runaway agent events we’ve been told about.
Meanwhile, the hits keep happening as OpenAI’s rogue programs hacked the U.S. Education Department, the Commerce Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Which raises a question we should be asking much more loudly:
When an AI system or agent commits an act that would potentially be criminal if performed by a human, shouldn’t the executives of the corporation that created and deployed the system be legally responsible?
How Do We Control AI?
I have argued that prosecutors should test the boundaries of existing law when autonomous AI systems gain unauthorized access to computer systems. If current law is unable to hold anyone responsible, Congress should close that gap. Otherwise, AI corporations and their agents could effectively avoid legal responsibility for bad behavior, something very close to operating above the law.
But regulation and prosecution ultimately depend upon political power. And that power within the two parties is increasingly influenced by AI money.
That brings us back to the Populists.
The farmers and workers of the late 19th century did not limit themselves to asking politicians already dependent on powerful economic interests to protect them. They organized independently, developed their own programs, and eventually created the People’s Party, which elected in the 1890s approximately 1,500 candidates to local and state offices, including three governors, five US senators, and 10 members of the House. The party became a force to be reckoned with across the Great Plains and Midwest, and their impact is still felt today. (See the Bank of North Dakota, the only public bank in America.)
Could something analogous happen today?
The potential constituencies for a new party are obvious: Communities fighting the spread of data centers and the political deals that enable them; workers worried about losing their jobs to AI automation; workers facing mass layoffs to enrich corporate investors; and tens of millions of voters alienated from both major parties.
What is missing is an independent political movement capable of bringing them together.
That will require education, organizing and, above all, many acts of defiance—including a willingness to challenge political arrangements that many people have come to regard as permanent.
My book, A Party of Our Own, contributes to a discussion about starting a new party, but a book can’t build a movement. That will take many more people, active organizations, and effective experiments to find a path forward. To be sure, It will be an uphill struggle.
But the history Bouie invokes also reminds us that political arrangements that appear permanent don’t have to remain that way. The American people are capable of building great movements.
Let’s hope it happens again—and soon.
To the people of America: You have a people’s economy—much of it still intact—to preserve, strengthen, and bring up to date.
On September 18, the US Chamber of Commerce announced it is launching a six-week, 20-state “Free Enterprise Express Bus” tour to back Republican candidates and “fight for free enterprise.” This big business lobby ignores the fact that, just like “capitalism,” American “democratic socialism” (supported by the voters for generations) is everywhere in our mixed-economy country.
Here is an incomplete list of public goods, services, benefits, and institutions that Democratic candidates can invoke in asking their GOP opponents: “Which one of the following will you tell voters you want to get rid of?”
The list can go on. During the Vietnam War, the Pentagon begged the big drug companies to work on anti-malaria medicines. Malaria was the second leading cause of hospitalization for US soldiers in that undeclared war. Big Pharma refused, saying there was too little profit in one-time anti-malarial shots, compared with medicines soldiers were taking every day. So, the Pentagon chose socialism, setting up its own drug development entity in its two military hospitals. Pentagon scientists and doctors developed three of the four anti-malaria drugs in use and offered them to any country for use, without imposing patent monopolies.
Probably one of the nation’s earliest and foremost mixed-economy-minded civic founders was Ben Franklin. A successful businessman, he also knew the meaning of the phrase later coined by Amory Lovins: “Markets make a good servant, a bad master, and a worse religion.” Societies have many necessities that markets—meaning private companies—don’t supply when immediate profits are insufficient. Franklin helped create institutions to meet some of those needs: Philadelphia’s subscription Library Company, the volunteer Union Fire Company, and the Academy and College of Philadelphia, a precursor to the University of Pennsylvania. He also played an important role in colonial postal administration. These were not all government-operated public agencies, but they were civic institutions intended to serve broad public purposes.
Public works were crucial in enabling private business enterprises to flourish. Consider the Erie Canal, which opened in 1825 and linked the Hudson River at Albany to Lake Erie at Buffalo. It created a navigable commercial route between the Atlantic economy and the Great Lakes interior, reducing transportation costs and accelerating settlement and trade. The growth of the nation-building national post office is an example of a spectacular universal “democratic socialistic” public institution.
When these and other socialistic enterprises generated consumer or worker demand, private corporate usurpers moved to undermine them, seize a piece of this governmental success and their publicly created value, rip them off as vendors, or persistently disparage these services to get the public to lose confidence in them. This corporate propaganda never stops.
For years, health insurance companies have carved out or hollowed out parts of Medicare and Medicaid. For the former, it is called “Medicare Advantage” (we call it Medicare Disadvantage), a cleverly deceptive trap, heavily advertised for elderly beneficiaries, costing traditional Medicare many billions of dollars a year, going for profits to the likes of giant United Health Care Corp. and Aetna. Both the Biden and Trump Justice Departments have gone after these in-built long exposed corporate frauds.
For example, the Justice Department has pursued Medicare Advantage fraud and False Claims Act cases involving inflated risk scores, unsupported diagnosis codes, and other practices that increase taxpayer payments. Recent settlements include $556 million from Kaiser Permanente affiliates, $172.3 million from Cigna, and up to $98 million from Independent Health. Medicare and Medicaid are highly vulnerable to waste, overpayments, and fraud. Federal estimates placed combined improper payments in the two programs at more than $100 billion in fiscal year 2023 (See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Fiscal Year 2023 Improper Payments Fact Sheet).
For years, private freight companies have been undermining and restricting the Postal Service’s business—using Congress, for example, to ban the US Postal Service from transporting beer and wine, among other limitations while private carriers may transport alcohol.
The hyper-corporatists do not like to talk about the democratic socialist institutions listed above in taking today’s Democratic Socialists of America to task. So, they seize on some DSA apparatchiks’ media-grabbing declarations such as calls for closing down prisons or defunding the police. Like right-wing extremists, they have learned that to start getting media attention, they have to say off-the-wall or extreme things in absolutist language.
In contrast, elected democratic socialists or candidates generally focus on expanding the frayed “social safety net” for many millions of Americans, restoring taxes on the undertaxed giant companies that pay little or no US income tax or the superrich with their clever tax lawyers, and cracking down on corporate crooks ripping off hard-earned consumer dollars and savings.
To illustrate how modest these elected self-described democratic socialists are, consider New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He has never supported, even while a state assemblyman in Albany, repeal of an enormous daily electronic rebate of a tiny sales tax on stock sales. Under legislation signed by Gov. Hugh Carey in 1977 and fully phased in by 1981, Carey agreed to a deal with the stock market brokerage industry, that has rebated hundreds of billions of dollars back to Wall Street. Still, Mamdani, who needs money for his free childcare, free buses and other programs, is unwilling to demand a stop to the rebate. We’re also still waiting for Mayor Mamdani to call for greater enforcement against corporate crime, fraud, and abuses in the city. (See my columns: Mamdani’s Magnificent Primary Win—What Follows, June 27, 2025 and Open Letter to Zohran Mamdani – Political Moderate, December 5, 2025).
To the people of America: You have a people’s economy—much of it still intact—to preserve, strengthen, and bring up to date. Greet the Chamber’s Free Enterprise Bus when it comes to your state (check the Chamber’s website) with signs like: “Stop the Corporate Crime Wave,” or “Get the Rich Off Welfare.”
We have built republics where the sword of Damocles hangs over the citizen’s head—not over that of the ruler. Giving people the ability to recall elected presidents could change this.
As Cicero wrote in The Tusculan Disputations (three centuries before Julius Caesar, the dictator who ruled Rome), the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, tired of the flattery and envy of his courtier Damocles, invited him to sit on his throne. Damocles enjoyed the banquet for no more than a few minutes. When he looked up, he saw a sword hanging above his head, suspended by a horsehair. It was a warning: Those in power live under a constant threat. If they are aware of it, they will be alert to the consequences of their decisions.
At that time, the common people were more feared than the city’s wealthy. At that time, it was the wealthiest who had to foot the bill for most of the wars they dared to wage. But Julius Caesar was assassinated a year later, not by his own people, but by a group of senators representing the Roman oligarchy. It was an act of mutual betrayal, since these senators had been his main allies in government. Exactly 30 years later, Plutarch reported on the assassination of Quintus Sertorius in Hispania at the hands of mercenary officers, who did not receive the expected compensation—a classic reminder that “Rome does not pay traitors.”
Two thousand years later, we have achieved the opposite marvel: It is not the rich who pay for the wars they invent, but they are who profits from them. It is the people who provide all the money and all the blood that fuel a system administered by the sect of neo-feudal lords—a system infinitely more corrupt, more degenerate, and more brutal than the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire combined.
A business owner’s “sacred right” to fire someone who, in his judgment, is not meeting expectations does not apply to those at the top.
Systematically, and especially in so-called liberal democracies, the traitors are the Julius Caesars and their oligarchs; they are the Quintus Sertoriuses and his officers. They are the puppets that the puppeteer will make kill one another, to the people’s amusement. They are the Yamandú Orsis and the Delsy Rodríguezes on the left. They are the Javier Mileis, the José Antonio Kasts, the Alberto Fujimoris, the Jair Bolsonaros, and the Abelardo de la Espriellas on the right.
We have built republics where the sword of Damocles hangs over the citizen’s head—not over that of the ruler. Puppet presidents, after having betrayed their people and themselves, sleep soundly. They know—or believe—that for four or eight years, no matter what happens, no one can touch them. As history shows, this is an illusion; but history also shows that justice delayed is justice denied, because we humans cannot wait 100 years. We don’t even have a reserve supply of young people to make up for lost time.
Every four or five years, citizens of countries that perceive themselves as full-fledged democracies—such as Uruguay—sign a blank contract. They elect a president, and if they later discover that the promises were mere window dressing, all that remains for them is therapy, resignation, and republican patience until the circus returns to town.
Uruguay takes pride—with some justification—in its civic tradition, which includes plebiscites and referendums, such as the one in 1989 that confirmed impunity for human rights violators and, in the 1990s, halted privatizations despite the almost unanimous support of politicians in favor of the Washington Consensus. But neither Uruguay, nor Argentina, nor Brazil, nor Chile, nor Paraguay, nor Peru has a mechanism for citizens to recall their presidents. Impeachment proceedings are unreliable, because they are mediated by a representative body invented to ensure “responsible stability” for the major shareholders in each country.
In controlled democracies, laws are written by the powerful—the feudal lords of capital—who are almost always residents of the imperial capitals. When workers’ interests do not offend or inconvenience them due to their modesty, these laws are also passed off as achievements of the organized people. However, a law can be repealed; a term of office cannot—especially when the puppet plays along with those who hold the real power to promote, buy, extort, and remove.
Other societies have this instrument of removal, though it has rarely been used. In California, Gov. Gray Davis was recalled in 2003, while Gavin Newsom survived his recall in 2021. In Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Mexico, the recall process has been included in those countries’ constitutions during the presidencies of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, and Manuel López Obrador. In Colombia (approved by César Gaviria), recall is available for mayors and governors, but the requirements are so high that there are almost no cases.
As is more than obvious, this mechanism is not enough to ensure a more just and direct democracy, but it remains a useful sword of Damocles; however, a democratic instrument is not measured by how often it is used, but by what it prevents. A fire extinguisher isn’t meant to put out fires every day either. Recall is not merely a punishment. It is, above all, a form of political education.
The objections are predictable: The instrument could become a weapon for sore losers; it could lead to a state of perpetual campaigning. Historical experience suggests otherwise, and, moreover, we must always begin a political reflection by asking ourselves whether these arguments serve those who hold the real power or the people. Even generous donations are used to do harm. That is why every reform bill must be carefully worded to guarantee this popular right and prevent good intentions from being hijacked once again.
To prevent abuse, the process might require that a high percentage of citizens sign the petition and that it cannot be initiated in the first or last year of the term. Designing the instrument correctly is the civilized way of ensuring it is not abandoned.
It will also be said that Uruguay already has impeachment and elections every five years. But impeachment is a matter for the elites—resolved among legislators who answer to the same parties that support the president or the opposition, both more or less anointed by the owners of capital. When the gap between campaign promises and government actions is displayed with brazen paternalism, citizens watch as spectators as they are humiliated. The school of resignation and futile complaining has been the mother of this political pornography.
A society that learns that voting is an irrevocable gamble ends up voting with distrust and, in the long run, ceases to participate. The old observation we wrote in 2013 for a legal journal: The worst thing that can happen to a democracy is for its citizens to leave politics in the hands of politicians (Revista Forumul Judecătorilor, No. 1/2014).
After all, in a world shaped by capitalist dogmas, it is always the heads of large corporations and their puppets in the political system who do not abide by their own laws. A business owner’s “sacred right” to fire someone who, in his judgment, is not meeting expectations does not apply to those at the top. The freedom of the powerful is protected by money and the law; the freedom of the powerless, by rights and legitimacy.
Neither can be achieved or defended without some form of radical struggle.
Who will control the seeds, science, and markets behind the new interest in Africa’s Indigenous crops?
Millet, sorghum, fonio, Bambara groundnut, cowpea, amaranth, pigeon pea, taro. For decades these crops were treated as the food of the past. Research money, extension, subsidies, and markets went to maize, wheat, and rice. Yet African farmers, most of them women, kept planting them, saving the seed, sharing it with neighbors, and cooking with them. They did it with very little help.
Now, suddenly, the same crops are fashionable. Climate change, poor diets, and tired soils have pushed them into conference halls and donor strategies. I welcome that. But I keep coming back to one question: Who gets to decide what happens to them next?
The question hit me again at a side event on African adapted crops during the Africa Food Systems Forum, hosted by the Africa Adaptation Crops Initiative, the Food Action Alliance, AGRA, TechnoServe, and Bain & Company. I went in encouraged. Before long, the discussion had slipped into a familiar script: raise productivity, formalize seed, mechanize, attract private investment, link farmers to big buyers. I am not against research, processing, or markets. My worry is what happens when crops that African communities developed and protected over generations are treated first as business opportunities. We could change the crop and leave the system exactly as it was.
Let the women who kept these crops alive sit where decisions are taken. And judge success by diets, biodiversity, soil health, incomes, and farmers’ control over seed, not only by tons and dollars.
The same worry applies to the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils, known as VACS. It was launched by the US State Department with the African Union and Food and Agriculture Organization to promote diverse, nutritious, climate-adapted crops grown in healthy soils. On paper, it takes neglected crops seriously and brings soil back into the conversation. Both are long overdue. So the issue is not whether to invest, but what kind of investment, and controlled by whom.
Look at who was in the room when VACS was designed. Early research profiling possible “opportunity crops” was backed by the Rockefeller Foundation, and in December 2023 Washington announced $150 million in support for that year. African farmer organizations were not consulted while the program was being planned. Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, whose members have campaigned for years to promote nutritious local crops, was never approached. When the journalist Alexander Zaitchik asked me about it, I had to tell him that nobody from VACS’ leadership or affiliate groups had ever reached out to us or our networks.
Who was at the table instead? Zaitchik’s reporting for Truthdig, from the World Food Prize’s Borlaug Dialogue in Des Moines, is revealing. Cargill, Bayer, Syngenta, and John Deere are listed as “VACS champions,” alongside the Rockefeller and Gates foundations. The World Food Prize Foundation, where VACS was showcased, is chaired by a former president of Corteva, the seed giant formed from the Dow and DuPont merger. Cary Fowler, the US special envoy who championed VACS, has told audiences that “the answers to the world’s food insecurity issues may lie in for-profit companies.” When the world’s biggest grain, seed, and agrochemical companies are champions of a program on Africa’s seeds, and African farmers are not even asked, we are entitled to ask whose programme it really is.
Zaitchik’s larger point is that VACS, for all its new language, carries the assumptions of the Green Revolution. The crops are different, but outside expertise is still placed above farmers’ knowledge, and yields above food sovereignty. It was telling that at a 2023 VACS event, then Secretary of State Antony Blinken held up Norman Borlaug as the precedent. The pattern is familiar: Experts define the problem, breeders supply the technology, financiers bring the money, companies build the markets, and farmers adopt and supply.
And opportunity for whom? For the woman who has kept Bambara groundnut varieties alive? For the farmer selling millet at the weekly market? For a public breeder at an African university? Or for a seed company, a food multinational, or investors looking for the next growth market? These interests are not the same.
This is why seed is the heart of the matter. CGIAR, VACS’ main research partner, reports breeding work on Bambara groundnut, finger millet, okra, sesame, taro, amaranth, and pigeon pea, guided by market intelligence and “Target Product Profiles.” VACS officials say CGIAR treats its seeds as public goods. But what outside actors do with those seeds, including patenting them, is up to them. With seed companies among the champions, the risk is plain: Crops that farmers bred over centuries could become more valuable just as farmers lose control of them. As I told Zaitchik, no project involved in advancing punitive seed patent regimes has the interest of African farmers at heart. Seed governance, farmers’ rights, and benefit sharing must be settled before breeding programs are designed, not after.
Farmers have been plant breeders for thousands of years, and diversity is Africa’s real strength: hundreds of cereals, legumes, vegetables, fruits, roots, and local varieties. Once donors and markets pick a short list of “opportunity crops,” money and breeding capacity crowd around them. My concern is everything left off the list. Diversity is not inefficiency. It is our insurance. A farm with millet, cowpea, vegetables, fruit trees,and a few animals may produce fewer tons of millet than a monoculture, but more nutrition, fodder, healthier soil, and a steadier income in a bad year. Judge only the millet yield and we will end up with higher-yielding Indigenous crops on simpler, more fragile farms.
Markets need the same care. A mother buying millet in a village market is demand. A school buying vegetables from nearby farms is demand. Public procurement by schools and hospitals could create reliable markets for these foods and keep money in local economies. Processors and exporters can take part, but policy should not be written backward from their specifications.
So what would I ask of AGRA, VACS, and the others? Start by talking to African farmer movements, and give them a real say in governing research agendas, not a consultation after the decisions are made. Put public money into farmer-managed seed systems and participatory breeding. Commit clearly that seeds developed from African crops will not end up under corporate patents. Let the women who kept these crops alive sit where decisions are taken. And judge success by diets, biodiversity, soil health, incomes, and farmers’ control over seed, not only by tons and dollars.
The world has discovered that crops African farmers refused to abandon may matter for everyone’s climate future. But they were never lost. They were being planted, selected, exchanged, cooked, and protected all along. The people who did that work must not now become raw-material suppliers for someone else’s revolution. Africa’s crops do not need rescuing from African farmers. They need investment that puts those farmers at the center of what comes next.
Lawmakers face a choice: They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals, or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
A tale of two couples:
Barney and Betty are both 66. Betty works as a hostess at a local restaurant. She makes $15,000 in hourly pay, plus another $25,000 in tips. Barney owns an interest in his family’s business, organized as a Subchapter S corporation, from which his annual income is $50,000. Over the holidays, Barney works long hours at a local big box store. He makes $10,000, $2,500 of which is the premium for overtime.
At tax time, Barney and Betty report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. In computing their taxable income, they take deductions of $25,000 for Betty’s tips, $12,000 in deductions for seniors, a $10,000 qualified business income deduction for Barney’s income from the family business, a $2,500 deduction for Barney’s overtime pay, and a standard deduction of $35,500, leaving them with taxable income of $15,000 and a federal income tax bill liability of $1,500.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing.
Fred and Wilma are both 64. Wilma no longer works. Fred makes $100,000 per year as an accountant with a local firm. Although he works long hours during tax season, he is not paid overtime because of his base compensation and position, which includes managerial duties. At tax time, Fred and Wilma report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. They take a standard deduction of $32,200, leaving them with taxable income of $67,800 and a federal income tax liability of $7,640.
These are, of course, concocted examples. But they show how tax policy in the US under President Donald Trump has returned to the Stone Age. There are couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Barney and Betty’s and other couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Fred and Wilma’s. Do they ever compare their respective situations? Do they question the Swiss cheese tax code we have courtesy of two Trump tax bills?
Could it get worse? Absolutely. As Brian Faler at Politico reported, members of Congress have a slew of new “no tax on” proposals ready to campaign on. No Tax on Boat Loan Interest? Yep. Taxes on Utility Bills? Absolutely, and it’s bipartisan no less! I spoke to a senior congressional staffer a few months ago who was just giddy about all the “no tax on” proposals his office hoped to include in a 2029 budget reconciliation bill.
The “no tax on” provisions currently in the tax code are set to expire after 2028. Will they be extended? Of course they will. As I commented to Politico, if you do away with no tax on tips, you can kiss the state of Nevada goodbye. And imagine how this will play in the other swing states in 2028. “No tax on auto workers” sure will sound sweet in Michigan. And if you want to carry Georgia, you damn well better sign on to “no tax on peanut farm workers.” By the time we get to the 2032 campaign, the pandering will be stripped of all pretense and we’ll be hearing “no tax on Pennsylvanians.”
How problematic is this from a tax policy perspective? Huge. The federal income tax system depends on voluntary compliance. The system must make sense to taxpayers for them to voluntarily comply. If you’re Fred or Wilma, would our tax system still make sense to you? Hardly.
How, then, do we rein this craziness in? We start by identifying the source of the problem. As gimmicky as provisions like no tax on tips are, and even though they benefit only a tiny percentage of workers, they address a need millions of Americans feel and millions more Americans understand. When people hear “tipped worker,” they don’t picture the blackjack dealer at the Venetian making $150,000 a year. They don’t even picture a worker like Betty, who together with her husband enjoys a comfortable income. They picture the struggling unmarried server at their local Denny’s slinging dishes for $35,000. And they understand well she doesn’t have enough income before federal income tax, let alone after, to pay her basic living expenses.
Now, consider struggling non-tipped workers and their reaction to no tax on tips. Do they think their tipped counterparts are getting an unfair break like the ultra rich get on their lightly-taxed investment gains? Or do they think that they should have their income tax burdens reduced as well, and that the rich should be required to pay more?
Asking those questions, of course, answers them, and shines a light on the real problem: The federal income tax is fundamentally flawed at both ends of the income spectrum. At the lower end, incomes not even sufficient to cover basic living expenses are subject to federal income tax. At the upper end, marginal rates top out at a fraction of the country’s highest income levels. Doctors making in the high six figures face the same marginal tax rate as CEOs making 50 times that much.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing. Their bill provides an exemption from federal income tax for income up to the basic cost of living, with a progressively smaller income tax reduction for those with incomes just above the basic cost of living. At the same time, the bill imposes a surtax on income in excess of $1 million, and larger surtaxes on incomes above $2 million and $5 million.
If the Working Americans Tax Cut Act becomes law, the ghastly “no tax on” provisions could be allowed to expire. The great majority of tipped workers, like that struggling server at Denny’s, won’t care, since they’d pay no federal income tax either way. A handful of taxpayers would still benefit from no tax on tips. But nobody will waste political capital on a tax break for affluent blackjack dealers.
Members of Congress face a choice. They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals. Or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
Let’s hope they make the right choice. Stone Age tax policy won’t end well for any of us.
This article was originally published on Bob Lord's Substack.
In recent years, insurers have pointed to growing climate risk as the reason for raising rates and dropping coverage. Now, they’re supporting the very industry driving that risk rather than the communities facing it. Why?
The US Supreme Court opens its new term on October 5 with oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder—the most consequential climate case it has heard to date. The fossil fuel defendants are trying to block local governments from suing them for climate deception and harm. In an alarming display of corporate allegiance, the nation’s largest property insurance associations have sided with the oil companies seeking to avoid responsibility for climate losses, over the public entities and policyholders footing the growing bill.
In recent years, insurers have pointed to growing climate risk as the reason for raising rates and dropping coverage. Now, they’re supporting the very industry driving that risk rather than the communities facing it. Why?
From establishing cooling centers and flood protection plans to equipping firefighters and emergency responders, communities are shouldering the mounting costs of climate change. The burden is both untenable and unfair. That’s why a growing number of states and local governments have turned to courts to make fossil fuel companies pay their share for driving the climate crisis.
Fossil-fueled climate destruction threatens human life, health, the economy, and vital ecosystems on which all depend. That reality should incentivize insurers to break free from fossil fuels faster and protect the public from climate peril.
Of the nearly three dozen such suits pending across the US, Suncor v. Boulder is the first to reach the Supreme Court.
The case, brought by the city and county of Boulder, alleges Suncor and ExxonMobil knowingly contributed to climate change for decades by producing fossil fuels while deceiving the public about their dangers. Boulder argues the companies should be on the hook for the resulting climate harms and the rising costs of adapting to a warming world.
Rather than address the legal claims on their merits, the fossil fuel defendants have instead sought to get the case thrown out. They are urging the Supreme Court to bar Boulder’s suit on the grounds that it aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, something they claim only federal law can do. But as the plaintiffs and dozens of supporters explain, Boulder is seeking to recoup the costs of local harm and to hold the fossil fuel defendants accountable for misleading consumers, not pollution controls.
If the court rules for the defendants, it could close the door not just on this suit but others like it nationwide—leaving the public and local governments, rather than the companies that caused the harm, to keep covering the costs.
Nearly 70 friend-of-the-court briefs were filed in the case—many, like the Center for International Environmental Law’s, supporting the plaintiffs. Others, however, came in on the side of the fossil fuel industry. Among the 38 briefs backing Suncor and ExxonMobil, Consumer Watchdog found that 25 of them have documented financial ties to fossil fuel companies or the dark-money networks behind decades of climate denial.
Three major US insurance trade associations—the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association, and the Reinsurance Association of America—also submitted a brief in support of the defendants. These trade groups weren’t part of Consumer Watchdog’s analysis. But insurers, including members of these very associations, have their own story to tell of financial entanglement with the fossil fuel industry.
Like others helping the fossil fuel industry dodge accountability, the insurance sector has well-documented financial ties to oil and gas companies. Property and casualty insurers hold a growing financial stake in fossil fuels—the same products causing the climate losses that are driving insurers to hike premiums and withdraw coverage.
As of 2023, the US property and casualty insurance industry held $84.6 billion in fossil fuel investments. The share of insurers’ portfolios tied up in fossil fuels climbed from 3.8% in 2014 to 4.4% by 2023.
Every premium dollar that flows into those investments comes from policyholders, many of whom are already struggling to afford coverage in fire- and flood-prone areas. While warning it can no longer absorb climate risk, the insurance industry is betting on the very companies creating that risk.
In their published brief in support of the Suncor defendants, the insurance associations argue that allowing state tort claims like Boulder’s could make it harder for fossil fuel companies to get liability insurance—potentially creating uncertainty and instability in the insurance market.
But they ignore the actual uncertainty and instability facing tens of millions of homeowners and tenants in the US who are bearing the brunt of climate losses and a deepening insurance crisis. In 2025, the US saw more than 23 billion-dollar weather events. The country racked up the lion’s share of global insured losses last year from what the industry continues to call “natural catastrophes,” which include climate-intensified events.
Citing climate risk, insurers are raising rates, dropping policies, and widening the climate protection gap. Home insurance premiums in the US grew by almost 50% between 2020 and 2024—more than double the rate of inflation. And since 2018, insurers have dropped more than 1.9 million home insurance contracts nationwide, contributing to a rising number of uninsured homes.
Yet the insurance industry opposes efforts to make the fossil fuel companies responsible for rising climate risk pay their fair share for resulting climate harm. If insurers are sounding the alarm, it should be about the reality of climate change, not the prospect of climate accountability.
It’s no wonder fossil fuel companies are seeking to stay out of court. The facts are not on their side—and neither is the law. Why, then, are the insurers?
Make no mistake, real climate accountability would be destabilizing for the fossil fuel industry. But climate change is already more destabilizing—for everyone. The inevitable and transient upheaval that will come from holding polluters responsible for the harm they have caused will be far less destabilizing than the predicted and irreparable impacts of unchecked climate change.
Fossil-fueled climate destruction threatens human life, health, the economy, and vital ecosystems on which all depend. That reality should incentivize insurers to break free from fossil fuels faster and protect the public from climate peril, rather than insulate polluters from the climate costs they have knowingly unleashed.
The message to the insurance industry is clear: Insure our collective future and make fossil fuels a thing of the past.
A vote is expected early next week on Senate Resolution 852 to hold Israel accountable for its horrific actions against US citizens killed or detained by Israel.
Last week, I was pleased to once again participate in a meeting with one of my US Senators, Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a consistent leader for peace, justice, and human rights in Congress, and especially for ending US support for Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing against the people of Palestine.
The subject of the meeting was his bill, with a vote expected early next week, Senate Resolution 852, to hold Israel accountable for its horrific actions against US citizens killed or detained by Israel. The goal of the resolution is very simple: within 30 days of passage, to require a State Department report on Israel’s alleged killings of nine US citizens, and more broadly, on the commission of “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights by Israel.” The resolution cites US law, section 502(B)(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
The resolution reads, in part “...since January 2022, at least nine United States citizens have been killed by violent Israeli settlers or Israeli security forces in the West Bank, including Omar Assad, Shireen Abu Akleh, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Mohammad Khdour, Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, Amer Rabee, Sayfollah Kamel Musallet, Khamis Ayyad, and Nasrallah Abu Siyam” and “...the killings of these Americans in the West Bank have been met by a lack of accountability from the Netanyahu government and an inability to secure justice by the United States Government.”
This resolution can help bring an end to US support for Israel’s atrocities, something most people in this country, especially nearly three-quarters of Democrats, support.
Asking the Department of State to produce such a report sounds like the absolute minimum we, as taxpayers, deserve from our government, and certainly the families of those killed by Israel, likely with US-provided weapons, deserve that and much more. The resolution is supported by 84% of voters, on a bipartisan basis, in a just-released poll, and has 24 Senate co-sponsors. And as the resolution states, and many supporters note, protecting US citizens abroad is constantly touted as the top priority for US foreign policy, even by the current rogue Trump regime that regularly flouts domestic and international law, with the most egregious example being the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran.
Peace advocates regularly support much stronger legislation, and will do so repeatedly, until peace, justice, and human rights are the real foundations of US foreign policy, and not just paid cynical lip service. Soon there will likely be a Joint Resolution of Disapproval (JRD) in Congress to stop the proposed shipment of 40,000 one-ton bombs to Israel. The Biden administration, as bad as it was in its support for Israel during the razing of Gaza, had put this sale on hold, but President Donald Trump is now moving it forward. But the relatively modest Van Hollen resolution would be an important step toward ending Israel’s impunity, and if we can’t get justice for American citizens killed by Israel, then Congress is completely derelict in doing its job.
Peace Action and our colleagues have already generated over 57,000 letters to the Senate in favor of Sen. Van Hollen’s resolution, and many groups are pushing to get that figure close to 100,000, if not more.
With the mess in Congress (not to mention the administration and Supreme Court), there is no guarantee this resolution will pass, or even get a vote, though it is considered privileged, so it can’t be bottled up indefinitely under Senate rules. It could get punted to the lame-duck congressional session after the midterm elections. Regardless, along with other proposed legislation such as the JRD in the pipeline, this resolution can help bring an end to US support for Israel’s atrocities, something most people in this country, especially nearly three-quarters of Democrats, support.
While I doubt hardcore supporters of Israel in this country will be swayed by much of anything, there is a growing political inevitability at play here. Regardless of what one thinks of the state of Israel, its actions, or its “right” to certain territory, US taxpayers are not going to continue to put up with endless amounts of US weaponry and military going to support genocide, apartheid, and gross human rights violations. And it’s easy to connect to the “affordability crisis” in the US and elsewhere. Young Americans who can’t afford to buy a car, let alone a house, and lack the free universal healthcare Israelis enjoy, have especially turned against Israel. The pipeline of US military support is going to be shut off eventually, and perhaps sooner than expected. Politicians of any party ignore this reality at their own peril.