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
grok
Big Tech Favoritism on Display with CEOs Set to Join Trump at China Summit
May 12, 2026
Sixteen Big Tech CEOs will be joining President Trump on his upcoming summit with president Xi Jinping in China this week, according to media reports. The Big Tech executives in attendance are expected to include Elon Musk and Apple’s Tim Cook.
In response, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman issued the following statement:
“It’s telling that when Donald Trump wants to put technology on the agenda for discussion with China, he turns to the Big Tech executives who are his donors, flatterers and enablers, rather than policy experts who might represent the national interest instead of corporate interests.
“Big Tech companies have spent at least $653 million cozying up to President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress – including donations to Trump’s inauguration, his gaudy ballroom and his political committees, pricey settlements of bad-faith lawsuits filed by Trump, and Amazon’s sponsorship of the Melania documentary. Big Tech executives’ participation in Trump’s China visit is yet another example of how they are getting back far more than they ever paid in.“
Entrapment and Self-Perpetuating Conflict Escalation in the Iran War
As the US and Iran struggle to find a way out of their war, they are being hampered by the entrapping and self-perpetuating nature of the conflict escalation process itself. Understanding this dynamic is a first step to preventing further escalation and engaging in conflict deescalation.
May 12, 2026
One of the main findings of those who study conflict resolution is that it is easier to climb up the conflict escalation ladder than to climb back down. Also, the deeply-entrenched enemy images on both sides, with Iran’s belief that the US is “the Great Satan,” and US references to Iran belonging to the “Axis of Evil,” confirm that a long history of conflict and grievances make the conflict harder to resolve.
The most significant concern in recent years has been Iran’s uranium enrichment and fear that it could be used to make nuclear bombs, a major source of angst for both the US and Israel—as presumably are Israel’s 90 or so undeclared nuclear weapons for Iran. Since the need for security and safety is one of the most fundamental issues at the heart of many conflicts, this is a classic case of the “security dilemma,” where a state’s actions to increase its security cause reactions from other parties that lead to a decrease in its security. Indeed, Iran’s nuclear enrichment led to the first iteration of this armed conflict, where in response, on June 22, the US and Israel launched a surprise airstrike on three Iranian nuclear facilities.
Of course, US President Donald Trump’s annulment (reportedly encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (painstakingly negotiated over a 20-month period with the P5+1 and European Union)—even though Iran was abiding by the agreement (as certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency)—surely undermines Iran’s trust in any agreement that it may now reach with the US.
The apparent trigger for the current hostilities was a visit by Netanyahu to Washington on February 11, where Trump and his inner circle met with Netanyahu, the director of Mossad, and Israeli military staff, in a highly unusual classified meeting in the Situation Room, in which Netanyahu made an hours-long, hard-sell pitch “suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint US-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.” He apparently argued that this could be accomplished in three to four days. Trump (who according to an article in The Atlantic has actually supported a hard-line approach against Iran since 1980) ended the meeting by saying, “It sounds good to me.”
Although various pundits, as well as the parties themselves, are arguing that one side or the other is “winning,” in fact, both are losing—and stand to lose even more (as does the rest of the world) if they cannot find an off-ramp.
In subsequent discussions about whether to go to war, Trump’s inner circle engaged in “groupthink” by not expressing their concerns openly and mainly acquiescing to Trump’s judgment. Groupthink occurs where there is pressure to reach a consensus without critical evaluation, resulting in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. In decisions about whether to initiate war, it typically “includes an illusion of invulnerability; an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality; collective efforts to discount warnings; stereotyped views of the enemy as evil; self-censorship of deviations from the group beliefs; a shared illusion of unanimity; suppression of dissent; and the emergence of self-appointed mind guards who screen the group from dissent.”
Just over two weeks later, in Operation Epic Fury, Israeli military strikes, informed by US intelligence, assassinated a number of senior Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—in a major breach of the international norm against the assassination of leaders. Moreover, the attacks were launched unexpectedly in the midst of an ongoing negotiation process between the US and Iran on its nuclear program, again undermining Iran’s trust in negotiations with the US. The US and Israel also targeted other military and government sites, with Iran, in turn, responding with missile and drone strikes on Israel, US bases, and US-allied Arab countries and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global trade.
Once the threshold to armed conflict has been crossed, parties typically become caught in a rapidly-spiraling vortex of aggressive interactions, which ensure that the conflict becomes worse and worse. As each inflicts increasing damage on the other, anger and a desire for revenge grow exponentially and each sees the other’s actions as provocation that must be responded to, typically with greater intensity than the action it follows, causing the conflict to grow in size and importance.
As each experiences losses or injury at the hands of the other, the desire to punish the other and to right the wrong that has been done increases. Conflicts then begin to operate in a “retaliatory spiral,” as both now have truly hostile intentions toward one another, further poisoning the relationship, and making a peace process ever more difficult. Reduced communication also makes reality testing more dubious and allows distorted images of the other side to grow.
Threats and ultimatums grow increasingly more alarming as both attempt to use “leverage” to influence the other. Trump, for example, threatened that Iran would be “blown off the face of the Earth,” “blasted into oblivion,” and “bombed back to the Stone Ages!!!” In early March, Ali Larijani, the head of the Iranian National Security Council, posted on X: “Be careful not to get eliminated yourself.” The next day, he, too, was assassinated.
What those making such threats fail to appreciate is that parties do not always respond to leverage as hoped. The use of heavy-handed leverage, especially threats and punitive measures, frequently backfires. All too often, parties react against these attempts to influence their behavior and refuse to comply—sometimes even at great cost to themselves. “Reactance” is a well-studied phenomenon that typically occurs when the party trying to achieve influence does not fully take into account all of the factors that affect the motivation of those they are trying to influence. In such cases, the blunt use of leverage is seen by the party for what it is—an attempt to “manipulate” it to act in a certain manner against its will or interests. In some cases, preserving one’s freedom of choice and control over a situation and not being seen by one’s constituents to cave to external pressure may be more important than avoiding punitive sanctions—even when they are severe. In such situations, leverage not only fails to bring about the desired result, but may even cause the party to become more entrenched in its resistance.
Reactance tends to be strongest in relation to punitive measures (“sticks”) but can also occur in relation to positive incentives (“carrots”), especially when they are perceived to be “bribes,” which erode an actor’s freedom of choice. Indeed, the creative use of incentives that are tailored to the parties’ interests will be much more likely to influence the other party than the blunt or simplistic use of leverage which may stir up resistance.
When previously defined limits to a conflict, termed “saliences,” are crossed, it tends to redefine the rules of the conflict. The US and Israeli action in breaking the taboo of assassinating leaders, and Iran’s decision to block the Strait of Hormuz—for the first time ever—represent two such saliences which caused an increased sense of outrage and injustice and more extreme retaliatory behavior in response. In frustration at the blockage in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump wrote on his social media account on Easter morning: “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.” A couple of days later, he warned: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
At this point, the international community became concerned about what further saliences Trump might cross (e.g., committing war crimes or using a nuclear weapon) and insisted on the parties agreeing to a two-week ceasefire, which had been proposed by Pakistan. Signed on April 8, the ceasefire did calm the situation significantly, as they often do (if not egregiously violated).
Soon after, when face-to-face marathon talks were held in Pakistan (which I’ve written about elsewhere), but no agreement was reached, Trump imposed his own blockade against Iranian ports—another first. Since then, although there have been no further face-to-face negotiations, the Pakistani mediators have passed papers back and forth between the parties, outlining their latest positions. One major factor that has slowed the process is the pairing of offers with threats, since the reactance it has engendered inclines the parties to reject the other’s offers.
Although various pundits, as well as the parties themselves, are arguing that one side or the other is “winning,” in fact, both are losing—and stand to lose even more (as does the rest of the world) if they cannot find an off-ramp.
Iran’s blockage of commercial ships carrying oil, gas, and fertilizer has been very costly for the US domestically, not only at the gas pump, but in terms of an economic downturn, inflation, and projections that the war will ultimately cost $1 trillion. Iran has also caused significant damage to US military bases in the Middle East (only recently reported) and a serious depletion of US military stockpiles. Moreover, US standing in the world has suffered considerably. Finally, for Trump, his ratings have fallen and there is concern that his party could lose in the midterms.
Iran has suffered not only the obliteration of its senior leadership, but also severe damage to its infrastructure; considerable civilian and military mortality; and loss of significant military assets, such as its navy, missiles, military bases, etc. The International Monetary Fund has projected Iran's economy will shrink by over 6% n 2026, with inflation running at almost 70%. It will take years for Iran’s reconstruction.
The rest of the world has and will also suffer greatly. For example, The World Food Programme has predicted that roughly 45 million more people could be pushed into acute hunger this year, and the World Central Kitchen has warned that fertilizer shortages could lead to a multiyear famine.
To work toward a peace agreement, both the US and Iran will need to recommit to and extend their ceasefire to give themselves sufficient time to engage in a well-planned third-party mediation process. Such a process would include adequate time to create an agenda of issues acceptable to both; exploration of the interests of each party in relation to each agenda item; discussion of creative problem-solving options that might meet their respective interests; and an innovative integration of proposed options into a more comprehensive agreement, acceptable to both.
Although it’s advisable for the Pakistani mediators, who have been committed and involved throughout, to continue in this role, it might be best to choose a venue such as Geneva rather than Islamabad that would allow both delegations to feel safe and have sufficient time for the process to unfold. Finally, technical experts, such as senior staff from the International Atomic Energy Agency, should be included to ensure understanding of the technical issues with regard to uranium enrichment and to propose new ideas.
To arrive at such an agreement, the parties will also need to reduce the number of tit-for-tat attacks on one another; lower their threats and hostile rhetoric; and do their homework to consider what inducements they could offer to one another.
Of course, another danger that will need to be anticipated is the possibility that either Netanyahu, who has recently said that “it’s not over”—or hardline factions in the US or in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—could act as “spoilers.”
Obviously, the fundamental issue is the need for a better understanding and institutionalization of the knowledge and practice of conflict prevention and resolution, so that such incredibly destructive and senseless wars can be prevented and disputes of the future more sensibly settled by constructive rather than destructive means.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Kings Movement and 'All Roads Lead to the South' to Protest GOP Voting Rights Attacks
"The politicians attacking voting rights today are clinging to a shrinking vision of America rooted in fear, exclusion, and minority rule."
May 12, 2026
Republican state lawmakers are seizing on the US Supreme Court's recent gutting of the Voting Rights Act to continue President Donald Trump's gerrymandering spree, including in Alabama, where "All Roads Lead to the South," the No Kings coalition, community members, faith leaders, and other organizations plan to come together on Saturday, May 16, in protest.
They are set to start at 9:00 am CT at Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge, named for a former Ku Klux Klan grand dragon and the site of Bloody Sunday, "for prayer and remembrance—on sacred ground, in reverence for those who marched in 1965, in gratitude for the moral courage they showed the nation, and in faith that the same spirit that moved them still moves in us."
The organizers then intend to hold a rally at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery from 1:00-5:00 pm. People across the United States outraged by GOP attacks on voting rights are also planning solidarity actions throughout the day.
"Sixty years after Bloody Sunday, we are once again being called to meet this moment with collective action. The attacks on voting rights across the South are not isolated incidents, they are part of a coordinated effort to weaken Black political power," said Cliff Albright and LaTosha Brown, co-founders of Black Voters Matter Fund, a leading partner organization of All Roads Lead to the South, in a Tuesday statement.
"But we have faced these challenges before, and we know our power," the pair continued. "Alabama has always been sacred ground in the fight for freedom, and this moment demands that we rise together once again. We are proud to stand with the No Kings coalition and people across the nation to make clear that our communities will not be pushed backward, our voices will not be silenced, and our power will not be denied."
Since Trump returned to office last year, the No Kings movement has organized three national days of action—in June, October, and March. Americans also held thousands of protests nationwide on May Day, or International Workers' Day, earlier this month.
"What is happening right now is deliberate, coordinated, and being driven by Republican politicians committed to abusing power and rigging the system to hold control for themselves and silence Black voters," the No Kings Steering Committee said Tuesday. "They plan on overturning every protection available for Black voters and will not be satisfied until they reinstate every Jim Crow-era law."
"That's why the No Kings coalition is joining in solidarity with All Roads Lead to the South this Saturday in Alabama and across the country for an emergency national protest against the attacks on voting rights by the Supreme Court and the swift effort by Republican-controlled states to disenfranchise millions of Black voters," the committee continued.
On May 16th, join civil and voting rights groups in a National day of Action in Montgomery, Alabama. Go to allroadsleadtothesouth.com for more details. #votingrights #50501movement
[image or embed]
— 50501: The People’s Movement ❌👑 (@50501movement.bsky.social) May 9, 2026 at 12:48 PM
GOP state lawmakers in Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas have already responded to demands from Trump and fears of losing a slim majority in the US House of Representatives by redrawing their congressional districts to favor Republicans in the November midterm elections.
Democratic state leaders in California and Virginia have tried to fight the Trump-led GOP's mid-decade redistricting by enacting new voter-approved congressional districts that favor Democrats, though both of those maps face legal challenges. Party leaders in Virginia on Monday asked the US Supreme Court to block a recent ruling against the Democratic effort.
In a case about Louisiana's districts that predated Trump's push, the US Supreme Court last month found that the state map was an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander" and eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, leading Republican Gov. Jeff Landry to suspend primary elections, even though absentee ballots had already gone out.
Tennessee lawmakers swiftly took advantage of an opportunity from that ruling by targeting their state's only majority-Black congressional district, in Memphis. As Tennesseans sued over the new map on Monday, the US Supreme Court's right-wing justices cleared the way for Alabama legislators to break up their state's majority-Black district.
"The politicians attacking voting rights today are clinging to a shrinking vision of America rooted in fear, exclusion, and minority rule. They are trying to preserve a past this country has already rejected," said the No Kings panel. "In this country, we do not answer to kings—not in the White House and not in our state houses. Power belongs to the people, and we the people will decide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Need Action': Ro Khanna Calls for Expansion of 'Morally Bankrupt' Supreme Court
"The next Democratic White House does not need a court reform commission like some college seminar," said the California Democrat.
May 12, 2026
With a right-wing supermajority controlling the US Supreme Court, and the recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais yet again displaying the court's "war on constitutional democracy," as one legal expert put it, US Rep. Ro Khanna is pushing for Democrats to move with just as much certainty as the far-right justices as soon as the party is able to reform the court.
In a social media post Tuesday morning, Khanna (D-Calif.) suggested the Democratic Party has all the information it needs to take decisive action to rein in the court as soon as it controls the White House once again—instead of simply "exploring" the possibility of judicial reform.
"The next Democratic White House does not need a court reform commission like some college seminar," said Khanna, who has been named a potential 2028 presidential contender. "We need action. We need term limits for justices. We need to expand this morally bankrupt court from nine to 13."
Khanna is among the progressive lawmakers who have previously expressed support for replacing Supreme Court justices' lifetime appointments with term limits and for expanding the court, which polls have found the majority of Americans support.
The congressman's comments came three days after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was interviewed by Ali Velshi on MS NOW about the Democratic Party's plans to reform the federal government, should it retake the US House of Representatives and Senate after the November midterm elections and the White House in 2028.
Jeffries called for "nationwide judicial reform," without mentioning specific actions the party should take to reform the court following multiple corruption and ethics scandals involving right-wing Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as well as rulings like Callais, which eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and cleared the way for Republican legislatures to redraw congressional maps and eliminate the electoral power of Black communities in the South and across the country.
The ruling of the supposedly nonpartisan high court appeared timed to allow the GOP to redraw districts before the midterms, maximizing their chances of winning seats.
"We are going to have to explore massive judicial reform, state by state and at the federal level, and everything should be on the table, as far as I'm concerned," said Jeffries.
Democrat Judicial Takeover?!
Hakeem Jeffries just proposed a left-wing takeover of the U.S. court system NATIONWIDE if Democrats regain power:
"We're going to have to explore judicial 'reform' state by state and at the federal level...everything should be on the table as far as… pic.twitter.com/yUBN2Wy9Zu
— Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) May 11, 2026
Ahead of the Callais ruling late last month, the Brennan Center for Justice published a report on several actions Congress could take "to fix the Supreme Court," which currently "wields vast power with minimal accountability" and has the confidence of less than a quarter of Americans, according to polling. Lawmakers, said the group, should take actions including:
- Enacting 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices as well as a system of regular appointments, allowing each president to name two justices per term and "infusing the institution with fresh perspectives and lowering the stakes of each confirmation process, all while enhancing the democratic link between the court and the public";
- Requiring justices to abide by a binding code of ethics, similar to those that guide every other court in the US, instead of a voluntary code that was adopted in 2023 after outcry over several ethics scandals;
- Curbing abuses of the court's "shadow docket," which the Trump administration has asked justices to use dozens of times to intervene in lower court rulings in order to protect its own political agenda from legal rulings; and
- Allowing cameras in the courtroom in "an important step toward transparency" that would "help Americans better understand how the court reaches decisions that affect their lives."
Advocacy groups including Demand Justice have called for expanding the court from nine to 13 seats, a move that the group says is "straightforward, constitutional, and grounded in history," with Congress having changed the number of justices that sit on the court six times in the past. A number of Democratic lawmakers have expressed support for court expansion, and former President Joe Biden convened a commission to study reforms in 2021.
At The Guardian on Tuesday, Austin Sarat, a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, recalled the historian Henry Steele Commager's 1943 warning that the Supreme Court "had never been a friend to US democracy, and it never would be."
"For anyone committed to the advancement of majority rule, he added, judicial review 'is wrong in theory and dangerous in practice,'" wrote Sarat, who said the Callais ruling put the danger Commager warned of "on full display"—as have a number of rulings since the court allowed unlimited corporate spending on elections in 2010 with its Citizens United ruling.
"Commager would not have been surprised by what has unfolded since 2010, but he would have warned Americans against despair," wrote Sarat. "He would want us to get busy trying to save what is left of our democracy by using our votes and our voices. There is no time to waste."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular