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
conservation
Big Military Spending; Lower Taxes—Trump Budgets Like Reagan and Bush
His latest spending proposals build on his history of overseeing significant reductions in taxes and dramatic increases in defense spending, in line with core conservative goals.
Apr 07, 2026
Since Donald Trump first broke onto the national political scene, there has been a serious debate among Republicans regarding his commitment to conservative principles. His style was, in a word, flamboyant. His morality was questionable. And his behavior and language were outrageous. None of these behaviors could be identified with the staid “buttoned down” behaviors on display in conservative circles.
In recent decades, Republicans have latched onto a range of social issues like gay marriage, transgender rights, and abortion, or cultural matters like xenophobia and opposition to affirmative action. None of these issues, however, were central to textbook conservatism, which historically has been encapsulated in the mantra “lower taxes, smaller government” and the insistence that the principal role of government ought to be “securing the national defense.” Despite not being cut from the same mold as Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, President Trump has proven his bona fides on advancing these core conservative goals. Mimicking the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, President Trump in his first and second terms has coupled significant reductions in taxes with dramatic increases in defense spending either to expand the Pentagon’s already bloated budget or to underwrite foreign wars fought by us or allies.
This week’s rollout of Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 looks like a conservative’s dream come true. He is asking for a $500 billion increase in the defense department’s budget, amounting to the largest increase (44%) and the largest overall military budget since World War II. This 2027 increase is on top of the $350 billion supplement requested for 2026, presumably to offset the increased costs resulting from the US-Israel war on Iran.
The 2027 budget request also includes increases for Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department (to cover the costs of immigration prosecutions). But the 2027 budget also makes cuts in 10 other government agencies, with sharp reductions for the State Department and international programs; renewable energy projects; research grants in healthcare; and a number of social, educational, and medical programs. When asked by reporters about the impact of these reductions specifically on Medicare, Medicaid, and daycare programs, the president replied: “We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things.”
Because mainstream Democrats have shied away from criticizing past and present wars and excessive defense spending, they’ve allowed Republicans to use the issue of budget deficits to play innocent and instead attack Democrats as “big spenders” who are recklessly spending the US into a hole.
What makes this problematic is that these dramatic increases in defense spending have been coupled with a sharp reduction in revenues resulting from Trump’s signature legislation—the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—that passed last year. That bill included reductions in taxes totaling $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, “lower taxes, smaller government” and a singular focus on defense spending—the conservatives’ dream budget.
Two additional benefits to Republicans result from this pairing of decreases in revenues and increases in defense spending. On the one hand, it sharply increases budget deficits, which Republicans have effectively used to call for more spending cuts to social welfare spending. Because mainstream Democrats have shied away from criticizing past and present wars and excessive defense spending, they’ve allowed Republicans to use the issue of budget deficits to play innocent and instead attack Democrats as “big spenders” who are recklessly spending the US into a hole. In reality, however, it was Ronald Reagan’s irresponsible massive tax cuts and huge increases in military spending that caused the budget deficits of the 1980s. And while during the 2012 election Republicans made an issue of the growing national debt, no one pointed out that it was George W. Bush’s tax cuts and the war in Iraq that rang up a bill of trillions of dollars with no new revenues raised to offset the outlays for the war and its aftermath. To date, that war has cost over $7 trillion. Now Trump is following in the footsteps of Reagan and George W. Bush.
There is still another way, that Trump, like Reagan, will try to exploit the crisis created by a skewed budget to his advantage. This week, when reporters asked the president about his budget proposal’s impact on daycare programs, Medicaid, and Medicaid (which will experience cuts or strains), he replied:
(We can’t) send any money for daycare because theUnited States can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do that on a state basis.
By recklessly reducing the federal government’s revenues and then forcing cuts in needed social programs to make way for increased defense spending, Trump, like Reagan, is forcing the financial cost of daycare, Medicaid, education, etc., down to the state level. Then when Democratic governors are forced to raise taxes to cover these increased costs, Republicans will pounce, criticizing them for raising taxes.
If this president’s policies over the last decade haven’t convinced the conservative elite that he's really one of them or voters that he’s not the radical populist his rhetoric made him out to be, then his 2027 budget should be all the convincing they need.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'David-and-Goliath': Ocean Defenders Collide With Industrial Krill Trawler in Antarctica
"The Bandero delivered a gentle but deliberate nudge to the stern of the Antarctic Sea, accompanied by a message: Stop despoiling the ecological integrity of the Southern Ocean," said activists aboard the ship.
Apr 01, 2026
An ocean conservation ship operated by anti-whaling campaigner Paul Watson collided Tuesday with a commercial krill trawler off Antarctica in what the fishing vessel's owner described as a "deliberate attack," but activists called "a David-and-Goliath battle against an industrial giant."
The Captain Paul Watson Foundation (CPWF) said on Facebook that, as part of its Operation Krill Wars campaign, the Bandero is currently targeting "two of the largest Norwegian trawlers operating in Antarctic waters, the Antarctic Endurance and the Antarctic Sea,"—both of which are owned by Aker QRILL Company of Lysaker, Norway.
"Earlier today, both trawlers released lines into the water to move the Bandero, a dangerous maneuver that could have disabled our ship," the foundation alleged. "In response, the Bandero delivered a gentle but deliberate nudge to the stern of the Antarctic Sea, accompanied by a message: Stop despoiling the ecological integrity of the Southern Ocean."
Aker QRILL is owned by New York City-based American Industrial Partners and Norwegian billionaire Kjell Inge Røkke, and calls itself "the world's leading krill company."
Company CEO Webjørn Barstad responded to the incident by claiming in an interview with Reuters that "our crew were put at risk in some of the most remote waters on Earth, and only luck avoided potential environmental damage."
"If the steel plates... had ruptured, it could have caused a spill," Barstad added. "It was probably just luck that it didn't cause more damage."
CPWF scoffed at the company's claims of danger, saying on Facebook that "I understand your need to play the victim while you scoop life from the sea."
As the Operation Krill Wars campaign explains:
Krill is the keystone species of the ecosystem in Antarctica. The majority of Antarctic species are reliant on krill as their primary food source or krilI is the the food source of their prey. From the great whales down to the penguins, seals, and seabirds, all rely on an abundance of krill to survive.
Currently the quota set by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is 620,000 tons which is said to represent 1% of the total biomass of krill. However the fishing of krill is in concentrated areas, meaning that the likelihood of ecological collapse in those areas is far more likely.
After the near extinction of several large whale species in the 19th and 20th centuries, conservation efforts in the later half of the 20th century and 21st century have seen whale populations recovering. Though not back to their pre-commercial whaling numbers, this increase in whale populations obviously requires a greater amount of krill for food. Yet what we are seeing is a greater extraction of krill by human commercial enterprises.
“If the ocean dies, we die,” Paul Watson said in a statement. “Krill are the blood of the sea. Without them, the whales, penguins, fish, and birds will starve, and the ocean will fall silent.”
Watson is best known as the co-founder of Greenpeace and, later, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. He has dedicated his life to defending marine wildlife—especially mammals like whales—from harm. A controversial figure, Watson was arrested and jailed in Greenland in 2024 on an international warrant issued by Japan over his anti-whaling activism. However, he was freed after Denmark—which controls Greenland's foreign affairs—refused Japan's extradition request.
CPWF said that the issue of ocean exploitation must be "confronted legally and brought to global attention."
"We are here in the Southern Ocean to oppose a crime against nature and humanity—aggressively, but nonviolently," the group said Wednesday. "We welcome the opportunity to defend our actions in court and expose the true cost of krill fishing to the world."
The Bob Brown Foundation, an Australian green group, defended CPWF in a statement Wednesday calling "for the complete end to krill fishing in Antarctica."
"The krill fishing industry is fully aware of the damage they cause, such as killing whales in their nets, yet they do all they can to greenwash krill products," said Bob Brown Foundation Antarctic and marine campaigner Alistair Allan. "We applaud the brave actions of the Captain Paul Watson Foundation, who are ensuring that the plunder of krill does not go unchallenged.”
“Krill is violently sucked out of Antarctica’s fragile wilderness all for products we don’t need, such as fish farm feed, pet food, and supposed health products," Allan added. "It’s time for the world to boycott all products with krill in them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Forests, Not Data Centers: A Better Plan for Rural Prosperity
Local and state governments should invest in protecting natural landscapes as the foundation of rural prosperity—not funnel more public dollars into yet another dirty and destructive industry.
Mar 25, 2026
Nature is our lifeline. Technology cannot replace it.
That truth is the heart of a growing conflict in rural America. As data centers and AI infrastructure are sold to communities as “innovation,” “jobs,” and “the future,” we’re being asked to trade away the natural systems that have always sustained us: forests, clean water, a stable climate, and the human need for connection with each other and the natural world.
It’s not a fair trade. It’s not a winning economic strategy. And no matter what Big Tech claims, it’s not good for us.
Like many Americans, my most treasured memories come from time spent outdoors. I grew up exploring the forests of coastal South Carolina—climbing trees, watching birds fly across the sunset, picking wildflowers. Those experiences led me to co‑found Dogwood Alliance, an organization dedicated to protecting Southeastern forests, in 1996.
We still have a choice: Allow hollow promises to lead us into a dead planet, or look to nature for survival and joy.
Our Southern forests are among the most biodiverse in the nation—and are the least protected. Industrial logging has presented the greatest threat to forests I’ve seen in my lifetime. The South is logged at a rate estimated to be four times higher than South American rainforests. I’ve seen how decades of expansion in wood production—from paper to biomass wood pellets—have fouled air and water while degrading millions of acres. I’ve seen how clear-cutting and the conversion of wild forests into single‑species plantations have devastated biodiversity, water quality, natural flood control, and carbon storage. I’ve seen entire communities become sacrifice zones, with low‑income, Black, and Indigenous residents bearing the brunt of pollution and forest destruction.
What I have never seen is a corporation’s promises of clean operations and economic prosperity actually materialize. That’s why I am more convinced than ever that our future depends on protecting standing forests
Today, we stand at a crossroads. After years of community organizing, public pressure, and scientific pushback, paper and wood‑pellet mills are shuttering. For those of us in rural and forest communities, this presents a rare opportunity to rethink what we want our economy to be. Do we continue down a path of destruction, or do we accelerate the protection of nature?
Into this moment steps a new pitch: data centers and AI as the next economic “miracle.” But their enormous appetite for electricity and water accelerates resource extraction, pollution, and climate impacts. The declining forestry industry is now trying to hitch itself to this swindle, promoting the burning of trees to power data centers as a way to prop up its obsolete business model—and calling it “progress.”
Progress toward what? Much of what these AI data centers produce is inflammatory content that fuels political outrage and deepens social division. No wonder people across the country are pushing back—and winning.
In so many ways, forests are the most advanced technology the world has ever known. They regulate temperature, store carbon, support food systems, and offer psychological grounding no device can replicate. When left intact, forests are self‑maintaining, self‑renewing, and infinitely more productive than any data center.
Study after study shows that time in nature improves cognitive function and a wide range of mental and physical health markers. Research also links depression, anxiety, and attention disorders to tech overload and reduced time outdoors. Science shows what we instinctively know to be true—nature brings people together. Protecting it is one of the few remaining ways to restore health and rebuild unity in a divided time.
Equally important, forest protection is a proven economic strategy for rural communities. The outdoor recreation economy generates far more revenue and jobs than the timber industry. Conservation and recreation jobs, ecological restoration, and community‑led development create long‑term prosperity without sacrificing land, water, or health. These sectors keep wealth local, strengthen small businesses, and attract people who want to live in places defined by beauty and belonging—not destruction and noise.
At Dogwood Alliance, we’ve seen what happens when communities reject extractive industry and shift to people power. Last year, we partnered with New Alpha Community Development Corporation to purchase Freedom Land, a 305‑acre property that will become a community‑led hub for forest conservation, ecotourism, and outdoor recreation. We also helped the Pee Dee Indian Tribe purchase 77 acres of wetlands to create an environmental education center celebrating Native American culture and heritage.
These projects offer a blueprint for a community‑led movement to save our forests and our towns. And they come at a critical moment, as rural communities face new threats from Big Tech’s land‑hungry, resource‑intensive infrastructure
We still have a choice: Allow hollow promises to lead us into a dead planet, or look to nature for survival and joy. Local and state governments should invest in protecting natural landscapes as the foundation of rural prosperity—not funnel more public dollars into yet another dirty and destructive industry.
We can and must build a future rooted in nature, not in the false god of AI technology. Nature is not just the original technology—it’s still the best.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular