SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
big tech
After Eliminating USAID, Trump Is Exploiting Need To Steal Africa’s Resources
From Ghana to South Africa, the Trump administration maliciously leverages human suffering to continue the centuries-long exploitation and systematic theft of Africa’s resources.
May 13, 2026
On May 4, Zambian Foreign Minister Mulambo Haimbe announced that negotiations with the US regarding critical health services and minerals have been suspended due to the Trump administration’s “unacceptable” terms.
For Haimbe, this includes: first, the Trump administration’s proposed health memorandum of understanding (MOU) requires that Zambia turn over health data to the US “in violation of our citizen’s right to privacy.”
Second, the US demands “preferential treatment of US companies over Zambia’s critical minerals.” Haimbe rejects this. He contends, “the Zambian government rightfully takes the view, first and foremost, that Zambians must have a say on how her critical minerals are used, and second that no one strategic partner is to be treated preferentially to others.”
Third, and perhaps most crucially, is “the coupling of the two agreements and frameworks to one another such that the conclusion of the minerals agreement is made conditional to the conclusion of the Health MOU.” The US is effectively demanding privileged access to Zambia’s abundant supply of copper, lithium, and cobalt—all critical for the development of AI and modern technologies—in exchange for health funding.
The only ones who benefit from forcing Zambia to trade raw minerals and data for health services are tech companies and the Trump family businesses.
This is not an isolated incident. As of March 2026, at least 24 African countries have agreed to similarly controversial health agreements with the US. Zambia, Ghana, and Zimbabwe are the only African nations thus far to reject the Trump administration’s coercive demands.
In those cases, concerns about data management and control similarly derailed negotiations. Arnold Kavaarpuo, executive director of Ghana’s Data Protection Commission, explained, “The proposed data sharing agreement looked at access not only to health data sets, but also to metadata, dashboards, reporting tools, data models, and data dictionaries.” It would have allowed up to 10 US entities access to this data without any prior approval from the Ghanese government.
Similarly, the US was demanding that Zimbabwe turn over any data it collects about pathogens causing outbreaks. Zimbabwe would not, however, be guaranteed access to any vaccines, treatments, diagnostics, or medical innovations that might result from this shared data. As Ndabaningi Nick Mangwana, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Information, Publicity, and Broadcasting Services, remarked: “In essence, our nation would provide the raw materials for scientific discovery without any assurance that the end products would be accessible to our people should a future health crisis emerge. The United States, meanwhile, was not offering reciprocal sharing of its own epidemiological data with our health authorities.”
These kinds of take-it-or-leave-it proposals represent the Trump administration’s strong-arm approach to global health funding. Instead of foreign aid, President Donald Trump offers two options: a crooked deal or death.
This has been their goal from the start. Throughout his second term, President Donald Trump has taken several measures aimed at weakening foreign aid and humanitarian programs. This includes: dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAID); withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO) and 66 international organizations, including the United Nations Population Fund, which addresses sexual and reproductive health; as well as diverting funds away from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which supports HIV prevention, care, and treatment worldwide. Each of these actions deliberately endangers the lives of millions of people around the world—the cruelty really is the point.
From Ghana to South Africa, the Trump administration maliciously leverages human suffering to continue the centuries-long exploitation and systematic theft of Africa’s resources. Here, foreign aid has only one value: an exchange value.
Indeed, on April 27, at an event hosted at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and attended by major corporations including Google, Goldman Sachs, and Palantir, US Ambassador to the UN Michael Waltz formally announced the launch of the “Trade Over Aid” initiative. This is a self-described “international economic development vision built on free markets.” It is premised on the idea that, unlike capitalism, humanitarianism and providing direct aid only create “dependency, inefficiency, and corruption.” As Waltz remarked, “free market principles remain the best proven path to lasting prosperity with better and more permanent results than any of the alternatives.”
On April 30, outgoing US Ambassador to Zambia, Michael Gonzalez, echoed these remarks. He accused the Zambian government of widespread corruption and “nationwide theft of US provided medicines.” He contended that, “For decades, the US relationship with Zambia was one centered around aid.” This “unrequited relationship” is no longer tenable—“going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual.” Gonzalez continued, “We know that while you pursue a Zambia First agenda and we pursue America First, we are still able together to achieve something notably better for our countries.”
This emphasis on market solutions overlooks that capitalist exchanges always produce winners and losers. Competition, not cooperation, is the ethos of the proverbial free market. There is no “together” when “America First” is pitted against “Zambia First.” Instead of “lasting prosperity,” the only “permanent results” are widening inequalities between the haves and the have-nots.
And to be clear, the winners here are neither Americans nor Africans. Americans will be forced to bear the social, economic, and environmental costs of more data centers, AI-driven layoffs, and AI-powered surveillance. Zambia and other African nations will see their natural resources stolen and the bodies of their citizens exploited.
No, the only ones who benefit from forcing Zambia to trade raw minerals and data for health services are tech companies and the Trump family businesses. It is worth noting that Trump and his children have raked in billions from their investments in cryptocurrency, AI, and data centers.
What the Trump administration is offering is no more than colonialism dressed as humanitarianism. Foreign aid should never be manipulated for profit or political power. We must reject capitalist schemes like “Trade Over Aid.”
Instead, we must focus on building institutions that guarantee the right to healthcare for all. This is not simply an act of charity. As every pandemic makes patently clear, ensuring that everyone has access to health services benefits everyone. In the end, we must recognize that healthcare is a human right and a collective good. Ignoring this puts us all at risk.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rural New Jersey Town Moves to Ban All Data Centers After Community Revolts
"This community came together in a way I never would've imagined to fight this thing," said one critic of the data center plan.
May 12, 2026
Leaders in the rural township of Andover, New Jersey are reversing course on a plan to allow for data center construction in their community after local residents angrily revolted against the project.
According to a Tuesday report from NJ.com, Andover Township Mayor Thomas Walsh Jr. has announced that the township council this week will hold votes on repealing two data center-related ordinances and on a proposed ban on the construction of data centers inside town borders.
While officials in Andover had initially been supportive of the data center project due to the revenue it would have brought into local government, furious opposition from residents convinced them to change course.
"We’ve had some discourse over a project that we were considering for the township that may have brought in quite a bit of revenue," Walsh said. "But we also agree that no project, no money is worth tearing it down at its seams."
Andover resident Ken Collins, an opponent of the data center, celebrated Walsh's decision to back down in an interview with News 10 New Jersey.
"I'm really astounded," Collins said. "I really can't believe this is happening. This community came together in a way I never would've imagined to fight this thing."
The township's reversal on data centers came days after a heated meeting in which one resident was forcibly removed by police after profanely berating local officials over their support for data center construction.
Andover police drew criticism after video showed the resident being body slammed to the ground while being removed, but Walsh said the officers' actions were completely defensible.
"[The police] showed great restraint all night, especially there,” Walsh said, according to News 12 New Jersey. “Those police officers, don’t forget, they don’t know what they’re in danger of. They think they’re in danger and they have to protect themselves."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents across the country object to their massive resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utilities bills, as well as the noise pollution they generate.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
At the same time, Silicon Valley elites are planning to spend huge sums of money in this year’s midterm elections to prevent candidates who support AI regulation from winning public office.
Leading the Future—a super political action committee backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights—is spending at least $100 million to elect lawmakers who aim to pass legislation that would set a single set of AI regulations across the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Proliferation of 'China Threat' Rhetoric and a $1.5 Trillion Pentagon Budget
Ask yourself: who is being fooled in this equation?
May 12, 2026
Last week, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth urged Congress to pass a 2027 Pentagon budget of $1.5 trillion. He justified the increase by saying we need a modernized, high-tech military to counter China.
US lawmakers have been using China as a military budget increaser and ultimate policy-generator for years. Competition with Beijing is invoked to justify military expansion, new regional alliances, AI weapons development, semiconductor restrictions, and rising nuclear expenditures. In Washington, framing a policy as necessary to “counter China” has become one of the quickest ways to secure bipartisan support. As a result, the “China threat” rhetoric proliferates while the military budget skyrockets.
In truth, China is not the existential threat that Hegseth and others claim it to be. For one, China’s military posture remains far more regionally focused than that of the United States, whose global military footprint spans hundreds of bases worldwide. China has instead actively shaped its military around “active defense,” with a navy designed to stay close to its shores and defend the country should any invasion occur. Any increase in China’s defense spending should come as no surprise, considering the US military buildup across the first island chain, just off China’s coast. China has also expressly stated, both through words and action, that it has no desire for war. It has been nearly fifty years since China was involved in a conflict. There are no signs of a policy shift when it comes to China’s pursuit of diplomatic solutions, and there is no use for any projection of “what-ifs” with zero historical background or evidence.
The greatest contradiction in the US-China tech race is that the United States increasingly undermines its own strengths in the name of defending them.
So no, China is not a military threat, but it is a threat to the political and economic balance of power. China’s growth over the past decade is unprecedented, and its economy is soon set to surpass that of the United States. Not only that, but China has become a global leader in research and technological advancement. While this poses no real threat to the American people, it does rattle the ruling class and business elite who rely on US imperial behavior to maintain a monopoly on advanced tech revenue streams. That’s one reason US tech giants like Palantir are currently paying content creators thousands of dollars to promote a looming “China AI threat” and advocate support for American AI companies.
The US claims that the US-China “tech race” is about national security, but it is really a struggle over resource control, economic power, and wealth accumulation. Instead of benefiting the American people, it drives militarization and undermines the very scientific progress the United States claims to seek.
The US has historically responded to external threats, military or otherwise, through force. When socialist projects cropped up across the world, instead of establishing diplomatic arrangements with their leaders, the US launched interventions and regime change operations. This crippled economies and forced governments to adhere to US interests. In response to China’s economic growth over the last decade, the US has responded by militarizing the entire Asia Pacific region. A simple regime change operation would not work, so a longer, more strategic operation was necessary. Over the past decade, a steady and well-funded campaign has convinced the general public that China is the greatest threat to the safety and security of the American people. It’s been largely successful, which is why using China as a policy generator works so well.
The truth is that the $1.5 trillion war budget isn’t meant to protect the American people but to pursue the agenda of the ruling class. The US is not trying to “deter” a future China threat; it is preparing for a war it will attempt to bring to fruition should all else fail.
Advanced technology will define the future. And currently, the US and China are building their own tech ecosystems, especially in the fields of artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and quantum computing. The US refers to this as a “strategic rivalry” with wider national security implications. This perspective only exists because China is considered a rival. China does not have to be considered a rival. China could just as easily be considered a development partner. And indeed it should, because cooperation on tech is the only potential avenue for ensuring the continued existence of the planet.
Instead, the tech race is exacerbating militarization and war while levying harsh costs on the environment. The US still heavily depends on China for rare earth minerals and other resources critical for weapon systems and technological development. In order to compensate for this dependency, the US has looked to other regions of the world — namely Venezuela and Iran — for access to oil and rare earth minerals.
Iran, in particular, holds significant untapped potential for rare earth elements. In 2023, Tehran reported the discovery of 8.5 million tons of lithium-rich hectorite clay. Its zinc, copper, and iron reserves are among the largest globally, just as Venezuela is home to the largest oil reserve in the world. These targets are no coincidence, and are not about “neutralizing a potential threat” as US leaders often claim. They align with a larger strategic plan to obtain resource dependency, advance business interests, and prepare for a potential war against China.
If the US really wants to win a tech race against China, it is shooting itself in the foot. Scientific progress in this country is funded in accordance with its military applicability. So instead of pursuing scientific advancements that could improve the daily lives and well-being of the people, it is pursued solely for military intentions. There are a lot of possibilities that go uninvestigated because the potential profit is not high enough.
China is not a military threat, but it is a threat to the political and economic balance of power.
Additionally, the US has launched a war against Chinese scientists and scholars in the United States. Last year, Marco Rubio announced the administration would start intensively revoking visas for Chinese scholars in “critical fields” such as science and technology. Since then, numerous Chinese scholars studying at universities around the country have been questioned, detained, and deported. Just last month, semiconductor researcher Dr. Danhao Wang reportedly fell from the third floor of a University of Michigan building after being targeted by federal authorities. While the circumstances surrounding Dr. Wang’s death remain under investigation, the incident has intensified concerns among Chinese researchers who already feel increasingly scrutinized and unwelcome in the United States.
The persecution of Chinese scholars is ultimately hurting US technological advancement. In its desperate bid to over-securitize the field, the US is systematically destroying the avenues it has historically used to advance. Many Chinese scholars have since returned to China; others are now too afraid to come to the US in the first place for fear of persecution.
Additionally, the US continues to sanction Chinese technology to protect US industries. This is especially absurd when it comes to critical technology such as electric vehicles and solar panels. Instead of enabling the transition to affordable and sustainable systems, the planet is continuously sacrificed for profit.
The greatest contradiction in the US-China tech race is that the United States increasingly undermines its own strengths in the name of defending them. Scientific collaboration is plagued with suspicion, technological progress is subordinated to militarization, and urgently needed green technologies are restricted in the name of corporate greed. The result is a self-inflicted weakening of the very systems required to address the crises of the future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular