

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.
Without New START, there will be no legal limits on US and Russian nuclear arsenals, triggering a costly and dangerous arms race.
On 5 February 2026, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START—the last remaining arms-control pact between the United States and Russia—is set to expire. Moscow offered to Washington to voluntarily extend it for a year, but US President Donald Trump recently shrugged it off and told the New York Times, "If it expires, it expires.” POTUS has also recently been in the headlines for saying that he doesn’t believe he is required to follow any laws except his own morality, accountable to no one.
I often think about the pre-election live-streamed conversation between Trump and Elon Musk, whose company SpaceX is now in charge of orbital dominance for the US Space Force over planet Earth. When Trump expressed fear of nuclear disasters like Fukushima, Musk responded by defending nuclear energy, despite the fact that a country that has the ability to create and maintain nuclear-power facilities is technically capable of creating nuclear weapons, and despite the fact that we still do not have the technology to remediate (detoxify) nuclear waste.
Musk went even further, minimizing the danger of nuclear weapons themselves. During the conversation which took place on August 11, 2025 (just three days after the 80th anniversary of the nuclear attack on Nagasaki), at an hour and 17 minutes Musk said: “It’s like, you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but now they’re like full cities again. So it’s really not something that, you know, it’s not as scary as people think, basically. But let’s see.”
No. We do not ever want to see nuclear weapons used again. The basis of any valid moral system means doing everything you can to minimize the harm you cause to others, and making amends for the harm you do cause. Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy entire cities.
A new arms race would not make anyone safer—but it would make weapons manufacturers wealthier.
Those who survive the initial blast endure slow, excruciating deaths from radiation sickness, burns, cancers, and generational genetic damage—as did so many in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is nothing “not as scary as people think” about this.
Recently, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at SpaceX announced that Elon Musk’s Artificial Intelligence software GROK, from Musk’s private corporation xAI, will be integrated into Pentagon networks. Hegseth said:
I demand and we demand that we arm our war fighters with overwhelming and lethal technology right now… This strategy will unleash experimentation, eliminate bureaucratic barriers, focus on investments, and demonstrate the execution approach needed, to ensure that we lead in military AI and that it grows more dominant into the future. In short, we will win this race.
The only race being fueled in the planet’s current polycrisis is the race to extinction, where there are only losers. The current push by the Department of War to accelerate AI-driven warfare alongside the development of new nuclear weapons eerily echoes the War Room scenes in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, where General “Buck” Turgidson treats mass murder and nuclear holocaust as a logistics problem and a branding opportunity. Reality is stranger than fiction when today’s enthusiasm for automation, speed, and “dominance” mimics satire like in Kubrick’s dark comedy. When machines shorten decision time and leaders prioritize advantage over restraint, the system begins to outrun moral judgment.
It was only a few presidencies ago in 1985 when the USA under former President Ronald Reagan reached a joint agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva Summit that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” The dialogue implied that neither side would seek military superiority, with the intention to lower the risk of catastrophic conflict and to advance arms-control negotiations.
From survivors of nuclear tests on American soil—like New Mexico, Nevada, and San Francisco’s Hunter’s Point Shipyard—to communities across the Pacific, from the Marshall Islands to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are innocent victims who experienced the horror of nuclear weapons. Their testimonies exist. Their pain is documented. Their warnings are clear.
As Mrs. Yoko Ota, a Japanese writer who put down this description shortly after the Bomb destroyed Hiroshima, recalled:
On the roads I saw thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children fleeing the hell of Hiroshima. All of them, without exception, were covered with terrible wounds. Their eyebrows were completely burned off. On their faces and hands the skin was burned too and hung in strips. If many of them held their two arms stretched toward the sky, it was purely to try and calm the pain. These unfortunate creatures had their whole bodies swollen up, like drowned men who have been a long time in the water. Their eyelids were swollen so that their eyes were completely shut, while the skin all around was bright red. They were all blind… Most of them were naked to the waist… girls completely naked, women without a hair on their heads, an old woman with both arms dislocated, walking along with them hanging by her sides, the flesh, burnt as if on a grill, came away from the bones; blood was flowing abundantly and a yellow liquid like fat mingled with it…There wasn’t a single person who wasn’t wounded. A woman was lying on the ground, her head split open horizontally. The whole inside of her head was red, like a watermelon. In spite of this horrible wound the woman was still alive and crawled along the ground, leaving behind her a long red streak…
Survivors of nuclear weapons deserve to be listened to—not dismissed, not minimized, and not disregarded.
Nuclear weapons should never have been created, yet we live with their existence. If the New START treaty lapses, there will be no legally binding limits on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. A new arms race would not make anyone safer—but it would make weapons manufacturers wealthier. According to The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), “The private sector earned at least $42.5 billion from their nuclear weapons contracts in 2024 alone.”
Companies positioned to profit include defense contractors and tech-military hybrids, many of which already benefit from massive government contracts. Elon Musk’s companies, particularly SpaceX, stand to gain further through expanded “orbital infrastructure” and defense systems. Trump’s proposal for an impossible “Golden Dome” missile defense system would funnel billions more into contractors like SpaceX, Palantir, Anduril, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman—all while creating the illusion of safety rather than actual security—and leaving the working class impoverished and degraded. “Food, not bombs,” has been a persistent slogan among people who demonstrate for peace.
Letting New START expire would end more than a treaty—it would end the last remaining restraint on nuclear escalation. Secretary of War Hegseth announced that the US military will “learn from failure” as a strategy—so wouldn’t it be efficient strategy to learn from the failures of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and take the opportunity now to renew New START?
Contact your senators in writing or call your representatives at the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, and urge them to support extending the New START Treaty before it expires on February 5, 2026. Without it, there will be no legal limits on US and Russian nuclear arsenals, triggering a costly and dangerous arms race. We need immediate diplomacy to preserve New START, as nuclear arms control is a present and urgent challenge.
If a Democrat on Capitol Hill endorses anything less than the elimination of ICE, the media and advocacy groups need to point out that they are in the fringe of the party.
Often times, the followers in a political party are far ahead of where their leadership is. This is indeed the case regarding the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill talk about reforming ICE and making changes in how ICE operates, rank and file Democrats have concluded that ICE must be abolished.
In polling conducted by YouGov on January, just under two-thirds of Democrats (62%) strongly support abolishing ICE while 14% somewhat support abolishing ICE. The bottom line here is that more than three-quarters of Democratic voters (76%) support doing away with ICE.
The only accurate way to describe Democratic support for abolishing ICE is that it is the overwhelmingly mainstream Democratic position. If a Democrat on Capitol Hill endorses anything less than the elimination of ICE, the media and advocacy groups need to point out that they are in the fringe of the party.
A Democratic member of Congress may argue that in order to win they need not only Democratic votes, but Independents as well. There is good news here for ICE opponents. Independent voters, though certainly not as supportive of abolishing ICE as Democrats, do support abolishing ICE. According to the YouGov polling, just over 1 in 3 (35%) of Independent voters strongly support abolishing ICE, while 12% of Independents somewhat support abolishing ICE. The bottom line here is that a 47% plurality of Independent voters support abolishing ICE.
I would hope that Democrats on Capitol Hill would take substantial political comfort in deciding to vote to eliminate ICE.
Successful politics is always about adding people to your coalition. The polling data from YouGov clearly shows that it is easy to build a strong coalition with Democratic and Independent voters to support abolishing ICE. I would suggest that anyone who tells you otherwise is either disingenuous or can not do the simple arithmetic.
Democratic support for abolishing ICE is so great that almost any Democratic member of Congress who fails to support the abolition of ICE could easily face a primary challenge. The dividing lines are that clear.
I would hope that Democrats on Capitol Hill would take substantial political comfort in deciding to vote to eliminate ICE. Abolishing ICE is strongly supported by the majority of Democrats. To any Democrat thinking of compromising on the abolition of ICE, I would ask if you are not going to support something that has the support of 76% of your party, are you really a Democrat?
"While Trump is weaponizing taxpayer privacy laws for his own benefit, his Treasury Department is flouting those exact same laws to send tens of thousands of individual tax records to his anti-immigrant henchmen at ICE."
President Donald Trump has sued the US Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns during his first term in the White House, when the president broke with decades of tradition by refusing to voluntarily divulge the records.
The lawsuit—joined by Trump's two eldest sons and his family business, the Trump Organization—was revealed Thursday in a filing with the Miami division of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleges that the IRS and Treasury Department "caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Donald Trump and the other Plaintiffs' public standing."
Charles Littlejohn, a former IRS contractor who was employed by Booz Allen Hamilton, pleaded guilty in late 2023 to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax return information and was later sentenced to up to five years in prison.
The US Treasury Department, led by Scott Bessent, announced earlier this week that it was canceling all of its contracts with Booz Allen Hamilton, accusing the company of failing to "implement adequate safeguards to protect sensitive data, including the confidential taxpayer information it had access to through its contracts with the Internal Revenue Service."
The leak included the tax records of Trump and other mega-rich Americans, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. The New York Times, which obtained the records along with ProPublica, reported in 2018 that the returns showed Trump engaged in "outright fraud" and other "dubious" schemes to avoid taxation.
Trump, according to the Times investigation, "paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016, the year he was elected president, and... he had not paid any income taxes in 10 of the previous 15 years."
US Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in response to the president's lawsuit that “Donald Trump is a cheat and a grifter to his core, and for him to abuse his office in an attempt to steal $10 billion from the American taxpayer is a shameless, disgusting act of corruption."
"While Trump is weaponizing taxpayer privacy laws for his own benefit, his Treasury Department is flouting those exact same laws to send tens of thousands of individual tax records to his anti-immigrant henchmen at ICE," Wyden continued. "It is the height of hypocrisy for Trump to pretend he cares one bit about taxpayer privacy."
Journalist Tim O'Brien, who has covered Trump for decades, called the lawsuit "a flagrant and obvious conflict of interest."
"Trump oversees the IRS. He wants the IRS to pay him a big chunk of change," O'Brien wrote on social media. "He is, and always has been, in it for the money."
The lawsuit isn't the first time Trump has sought a large sum of taxpayer money from a federal agency during his second term in office. Last year, Trump demanded via an administrative claims process that the US Justice Department pay him roughly $230 million in compensation for federal investigations he has faced.
Trump launched his attempt to wring $10 billion in taxpayer money out of the Treasury Department and IRS as he and his allies worked to gut the tax agency, leaving it with inadequate staff and resources to audit wealthy individuals and large corporations. The IRS is currently headed by Frank Bisignano, who was named "chief executive officer" of the agency late last year.
In a letter to Bessent and Bisignano earlier this week, Wyden and a group of fellow Senate Democrats warned that "the administration’s plans for the IRS"—including painful budget cuts—"will shift the burden of audits more heavily onto working Americans while giving rich scofflaws and big businesses a green light to cheat on their taxes."
"The administration has failed to detail any serious plan to avoid that unfair outcome," the senators warned.
Despite the specious swapping out of fascist ICE leaders seeking to quell public fury, the gutted, steadfast denizens of Minneapolis continue to show up in frigid weather to demand "ICE Out" and "Stop Killing Us." Honoring their righteous struggle, Friday sees the city nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by The Nation, which cites its "moral leadership" for those fighting fascism on "a troubled planet." Likewise moved, The Boss just wrote them a song. Minnesota, says one patriot, "taught us to be brave."
Writing to "the distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee," the editors of The Nation magazine nominated the city of Minneapolis and its people for the 2026 Nobel Peace "as longtime observers of struggles to establish peace and justice" and as the editors of a magazine that's proudly included "several Nobel laureates on our editorial board and masthead - including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." With their "resistance to violent authoritarianism," they argue, "the people of Minneapolis have renewed the spirit of Dr. King’s call for the positive affirmation of peace.” No municipality has ever been recognized for the award, they acknowledge, but "in these unprecedented times," they believe Minneapolis "has met and exceeded the committee’s standard of promoting 'democracy and human rights, (and) creating (a) more peaceful world."
To the Committee, they offer a brief, harrowing history: The Trump regime deploying thousands of armed, masked federal goons targeting the city's immigrant communities in a campaign more about terrorizing people of color than safety; the abuses of harassment, detention, deportation, injury, and the murders of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti; the call by elected officials, labor leaders and clergy for nonviolent protest; the people answering that call by the tens of thousands in the streets in sub-zero conditions, with mutual support and care for vulnerable neighbors, "through countless acts of courage and solidarity." Quoting Renee Good’s widow - “They have guns; we have whistles" - they argue the whistles have both alerted residents to the presence ofICE and "awakened Americans to the threat of violence (from) governments (that) target their own people."
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., they note, served as The Nation’s civil rights correspondent from 1961 to 1966. When he received the Peace Prize in 1964, he declared it recognizes those "moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice." King believed it is vital to show nonviolence as "not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation...Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace (and) transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood...The foundation of such a method is love." "We believe that the people of Minneapolis have displayed that love," the editors conclude. "That is why we are proud to nominate them and their city for the Nobel Peace Prize."
They don't mention any possible response by a mad, vengeful, impossibly petty king. But they do reflect the respect and gratitude of countless Americans who have watched the people of Minnesota endure "in the face of immense and continuing tragedy," and maintain their courage, dignity and humanity. One of those Americans was Springsteen, who explains in a brief note that he wrote, recorded and released Streets of Minneapolis within days "in response to the state terror being visited on the city." He dedicates it to "the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good," and signs off, "Stay free, Bruce Springsteen." On Wednesday, in hours, it soared to the top of the iTunes chart ranking bestselling individual tracks in the country.
The song is both classic Springsteen - potent, lyrical, with "a sense of urgency and genuine fury" - but atypically direct. It names names, crimes, this specific moment in history: "A city aflame fought fire and ice/‘Neath an occupier’s boots/King Trump’s private army from the DHS/Guns belted to their coats/Came to Minneapolis to enforce the law/Or so their story goes." There is rage: "It's our blood and bones/And these whistles and phones/Against Miller's and Noem's dirty lies." Resolve: "Our city’s heart and soul persists / Through broken glass and bloody tears." Tragedy: "And there were bloody footprints/Where mercy should have stood/And two dead left to die on snow-filled streets/Alex Pretti and Renee Good." Thank you to The Nation, to The Boss, to all those ordinary, extraordinary Americans standing strong against the monsters among us.
Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
We’ll take our stand for this land
And the stranger in our midst
Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Crying through the bloody mist
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
- YouTube www.youtube.com
