

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.
“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it."
A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump's renaming of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts after himself is illegal and temporarily barred the president from shuttering the Washington, DC cultural institution for renovations.
Trump's effort to rename the iconic Kennedy Center the Trump-Kennedy Center came after the president used his authority to purge the institution's board and appoint new trustees. In an unprecedented move, the trustees then voted to make Trump the center's board chair. Last December, the board voted unanimously to rename the institution—a move that violated federal law.
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board, sued over the name change, which outraged many Americans and, along with Trump's addition of his name to the US Institute of Peace, sparked legislation aimed at banning the naming or renaming of federal assets after sitting presidents.
"May the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts be renamed absent Congressional authorization? The answer, plain from the face of the statute, is no," US District Judge Christopher Cooper wrote in his ruling on Beatty's suit. "Nor can any other individual be memorialized on the front portico of the building."
BREAKING: we just won our Kennedy Center case!Both the renaming & the closure of the Kennedy Center are enjoinedKudos to our wonderful client @repbeatty.bsky.social & my colleagues @democracydefendersaction.org & Washington Litigation GroupThis is a 1-2 punch against Trump's corruption
[image or embed]
— Norm Eisen (@normeisen.bsky.social) May 29, 2026 at 11:55 AM
Originally called the National Cultural Center, the Kennedy Center was renamed via an act of Congress following former President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination.
"It is hard to imagine a more intentional legislative effort to call the Center by its chosen name," Cooper—an appointee of former President Barack Obama—wrote. "The organic statute also takes pains to ensure that the Kennedy Center’s public spaces honor President Kennedy and President Kennedy alone... The prohibition is unambiguous."
“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it," the judge added.
Cooper also temporarily blocked Trump's planned two-year closure of the Kennedy Center for renovations.
"In ratifying President Trump’s closure announcement, the Board was derelict in discharging the full range of its responsibilities to the Center," he wrote. "More specifically, the Board based its decision on an insufficient, one-sided presentation of information and
neglected to consider the full range of its statutory obligations and potential adverse consequences of closure on programming and memorial functions."
While Trump claimed the decision to shutter the Kennedy Center was based on input from a group of “many Highly Respected experts,” who said the center was “tired, broken, and dilapidated," critics including John F. Kennedy's descendants pointed to artists not wanting to perform there after the president's takeover and purge, which resulted in programming including the world premier of a documentary film about his wife panned by one critic as "a scowling void of pure nothingness."
Cooper said that the Kennedy Center could be allowed to close “after independently balancing its multiple obligations to the Center in a prudent fashion."
Beatty welcomed Cooper's ruling, which she said "rightly affirms that this administration's efforts to rename and close the Center have no basis in law."
"The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump," she added. "He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution."
Trump, meanwhile, took to his Truth Social network to rail against Cooper, "a Judge appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."
"Cooper ruled that The Kennedy Center, which was going to close in early July for largescale renovations and construction due to years of neglect, decay, and poor maintenance, and which was to be transformed by the Trump Administration into the Finest Facility of its kind, anywhere in the World, is not allowed to close for these renovations, which would not be possible to properly do without such a closure," the president wrote.
"Additionally, Judge Cooper ruled that the 36 Member Board of Trustees, which unanimously voted to add the name 'TRUMP' onto the former Kennedy Center, making it The Trump Kennedy Center, did not have the right to do such an addition, and the name, 'TRUMP,' must be removed," Trump's screed continued.
"I took great pride in taking over a losing Institution, and looked forward to making it into a Great and Prestigious WINNER for Washington, D.C., and indeed, the United States of America," he continued. "Unfortunately, Judge Cooper and the Radical Left would rather see it DIE than have President Trump transform it into something that everyone could be proud of, much as I have done, in many cases, throughout my life."
"Therefore, based on the fact that the Radical Left Democrats care more about opposing your favorite President, ME, than saving a dying Performing Arts Center, almost all of which lose large amounts of money throughout the Country, we are going to be working with Congress to transfer this failing Institution back to them so they can make a determination as to what to do with it," Trump said.
"Judge Cooper should be ashamed of himself! I cannot be involved with a situation where danger to the Public is allowed to flourish in plain and open sight," the president wrote. "Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey into 'NEVER NEVER LAND.'"
"There has never been a President of the United States who has been treated so unfairly by the Courts as I," he added, "but, that’s OK, I will continue to do, what is considered to be, a great job for the wonderful people of our Country."
Kennedy's niece, Maria Shriver said, "since the name-change" to honor Trump "no one wants to perform there any longer."
The descendants of former President John F. Kennedy are denouncing President Donald Trump's order to shutter the Kennedy Center and calling bullshit on his reasons for doing so.
On Sunday, Trump abruptly announced on Truth Social that beginning on July 4, the performing arts center in Washington, DC, which he recently renamed after himself, would shut down for two years for “Construction, Revitalization, and Complete Rebuilding.”
Trump said the decision was based on input from a group of "many Highly Respected experts," who said the center was "tired, broken, and dilapidated" and needed to be shut down for a facelift.
However, the family of the center's namesake said it has more to do with the recent pullout of talent in protest after it became the "Trump-Kennedy Center" last year and the president began asserting control over its programming, which included the world premiere of a hagiographic documentary about his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, this weekend.
In a post on social media, JFK's niece, Maria Shriver, gave what she said was a "translation" of Trump's comments about the center's sudden closure.
She suggested the president meant to say: "It has been brought to my attention that due to the name change (but nobody's telling me it's due to the name change), but it's been brought to my attention that entertainers are canceling left and right, and I have determined that since the name change no one wants to perform there any longer."
Speaking as Trump, she continued: "I've determined that due to this change in schedule, it's best for me to close this center down and rebuild a new center that will bear my name, which will surely get everybody to stop talking about the fact that everybody's canceling... right?"
Among those who have pulled out of planned performances at the center are the Washington National Opera, Lincoln composer Philip Glass, the Broadway show Hamilton, the actress and producer Issa Rae, and several others—many of whom directly cited Trump's takeover as their reason.
Kennedy's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, who is running for Congress as a Democrat in New York, was even more direct in his condemnation.
"Trump can take the Kennedy Center for himself. He can change the name, shut the doors, and demolish the building. He can try to kill JFK," he wrote. "But JFK is kept alive by us now rising up to remove Donald Trump, bring him to justice, and restore the freedoms generations fought for."
"When American history starts getting treated like something you can ban, erase, rename, or rebrand for somebody else's ego, I can’t stand on that stage and sleep right at night," said folk singer Kristy Lee.
President Donald Trump's decision to slap his name on the side of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is not going over well with many of the artists scheduled to perform there.
Days after the annual Kennedy Center Christmas Eve jazz concert was canceled over performers' objections to the name change, more artists have decided to withdraw in protest over the president's actions, leading to the cancelation of New Year's Eve festivities at the center.
A Monday report from the Washington Post quoted saxophonist Billy Harper, a member of the jazz ensemble the Cookers that had been set to perform on New Year's Eve, as saying his group did not want to play in a venue that had been unofficially renamed after the current president.
"I would never even consider performing in a venue bearing a name... that represents overt racism and deliberate destruction of African American music and culture," said Harper. "After all the years I spent working with some of the greatest heroes of the anti-racism fight like Max Roach and Randy Weston and Rahsaan Roland Kirk and Stanley Cowell, I know they would be turning in their graves to see me stand on a stage under such circumstances and betray all we fought for, and sacrificed for."
The Cookers weren't the only artists to withdraw from a scheduled performance at the Kennedy Center, as the New York-based dance company Doug Varone and Dancers also announced Monday that they were withdrawing from April performances at the venue.
In a social media post announcing the cancelation, the company explicitly linked its decision to Trump's renaming of the building.
"With the latest act of Donald J. Trump renaming the Center after himself, we can no longer permit ourselves nor ask our audiences to step inside this once great institution," the company explained.
Doug Varone, the head of the company, told the New York Times that his decision to cancel the performance was "financially devastating but morally exhilarating," and he noted that the troupe was set to take a $40,000 hit from withdrawing.
Folk singer Kristy Lee last week also announced she would not be performing at a scheduled Kennedy Center show in January, even while acknowledging that doing so "hurts" her financially.
However, she emphasized that "losing my integrity would cost me more than any paycheck," and argued that "when American history starts getting treated like something you can ban, erase, rename, or rebrand for somebody else's ego, I can’t stand on that stage and sleep right at night."
Trump-appointed Kennedy Center chairman Richard Grenell has lashed out bitterly at artists for canceling their performances, and accused them of having "a form of derangement syndrome." Grenell has also threatened to sue the jazz musicians who withdrew from the Christmas Eve performance for $1 million in damages.
"He has vandalized the Kennedy Center by putting his name on it," said former CNN host Jim Acosta.
Residents of Washington, DC reacted with outrage on Friday after construction workers slapped President Donald Trump's name on the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.
One day after it was announced that Trump's name would be added to the Kennedy Center, which was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, construction workers were spotted altering the lettering on the outside of the building.
When their work was complete, the building had been unofficially renamed as "The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts."
From a legal perspective, the Kennedy Center still retains its original name, as the power to change its name rests with the US Congress and not with the Trump-appointed Kennedy Center board of directors whom the president appointed earlier this year.
Andrew Howard, a Washington, DC resident, reacted with rage during an interview with MS Now when asked about Trump's decision to put his name on the side of the official national cultural center of the US.
"We should be shocked... that a felon, a convicted felon, and a thug, and, by all means, a grift has just stuck his name on top of a national monument," Howard fumed. "This is a desecration!"
DC resident on Trump putting his name on the Kennedy Center:
"We should all be shocked that a convicted felon, a thug, and by all means a grifter has just stuck his name on top of a national monument." pic.twitter.com/hzNcucRha5
— FactPost (@factpostnews) December 19, 2025
Former CNN host Jim Acosta also delivered a report from outside the Kennedy Center, which he described as "the scene of yet another crime committed by Donald Trump."
"He has vandalized the Kennedy Center by putting his name on it," Acosta said.
The former CNN anchor explained that only Congress has the power to make changes to the Kennedy Center's name, before noting that Trump "doesn't care about the law, doesn't care what's appropriate," and concluding that the Kennedy Center stunt was symbolic of "a childish and lawless administration."
Reporting from the scene of the crime. Trump has slapped his name on the Kennedy Center. But we will never call it the Trump Kennedy Center: pic.twitter.com/DFlabMjZPJ
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) December 19, 2025
Former Republican political operative Tara Setmayer wrote in a post on X that Trump's decision to illegally rename the Kennedy Center demonstrated his authoritarian ambitions to rule America by decree.
"This desecration of the Kennedy Center is another grotesque example of Trump’s 'Dear Leader' behavior," she wrote. "This has been a week of one wretched act after another by Trump. It’s got to stop."
Kerry Kennedy, a niece of the late president, vowed to personally tear Trump's name from the building.
"Three years and one month from today, I’m going to grab a pickax and pull those letters off that building," she wrote, before adding, "But I’m going to need help holding the ladder."
Other members of the Kennedy family condemned the renaming of the center on Thursday when it was first announced.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that “the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law,” and “can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says.”
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, also expressed her disbelief at the decision.
“It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy,” she said. “It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on.”
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," said journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday drew an outraged reaction after she announced that members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board, who were appointed by President Donald Trump, had voted to add his name to the building.
In a post on X, Leavitt announced that the building would henceforth be known as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," despite the fact that the building was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center... have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center," Leavitt wrote on X, "because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
Despite Leavitt's claim, it does not appear that the vote in favor of renaming the building was unanimous. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex-officio Kennedy Center board member, said after the vote that she had been muted during a call where other board members had voted to add Trump's name to the building, and was thus "not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move."
Journalist Terry Moran noted that the Kennedy Center board does not have the power to rename the building without prior approval of US Congress.
"Congress establishes these institutions through law, and only a new law can rename them," Moran wrote, and then commented, "also—gross."
Members of the Kennedy family also expressed anger at the move to rename the center.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that "the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law," and "can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says."
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, could barely express her anger at the decision.
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," she wrote. "At times such as that, it’s better to be quiet. For how long, I can’t say."
Shortly afterward, Shriver wrote another post in which she attacked Trump for being "downright weird" with his obsession with having things named after himself.
"It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy," she said. "It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on."
My acute focus on the danger of nuclear war may stem in part from the accident of my birthday on August 9, 1945.
I was born on August 9, 1945, the day the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, three days after dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Fear of nuclear war was widespread among children of my generation. There were air raid drills where we hid under our desks or crouched alongside the wall in the hall. There were debates about the construction of fallout shelters. Fallout from nuclear testing caused the radioactive element strontium 90 to appear in the milk supply, we were told. When I visited the Oceanside public library when I was 12 or so, I read the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Each issue included a picture of a nuclear clock showing how close political and military tension was pushing us to midnight and the risks of a nuclear war, which the scientists viewed as unthinkable.
For my 76th birthday, my older brother Ron gave me a puzzle of The New York Times front page on the day of my birth. The three-line banner headline for the day read: “Soviet Declares War on Japan; Attacks Manchuria, Tokyo Says; Atom Bomb Loosed on Japan.” The importance of the Soviet Union joining in their allies’ war against Japan was rightly emphasized by the Times. Unfortunately, the alliance came apart soon after the end of the war, and the Cold War between two nuclear-armed powers shaped global and domestic politics for over 40 years. Although several arms control agreements were reached between 1963 and 2010, in the last 15 years, the cancellation and suspension of these agreements and increasing political and military tension have put the Bulletin’s clock closer than ever to midnight.
We grew up with the fear that the Cold War could become a nuclear war, and each of us had to decide what attitude to take to both the Cold War and the nuclear danger. My parents shaped my attitudes, raised my brother and me to support unions, working people, and civil rights and to oppose the Cold War and McCarthyism. When playing touch football and other games with three other boys when I was about 12, we debated the U.S.-Soviet conflict. We usually played in a field near the Ocean Lea complex where the three of them lived. Touch football is a pretty easy, fun game to play when it’s two against two, at least when the four players are similar sizes, ages, and skill levels. We took breaks from throwing, running, and catching to debate politics, especially international affairs. In these discussions, I was critical of Cold War confrontation and favored negotiations to reduce the dangers of nuclear war and achieve eventual nuclear disarmament.
My acute focus on the danger of nuclear war may stem in part from the accident of my birthday. I’ve been writing about the dangers presented by nuclear weapons for over 60 years. I hope the reader will forgive me for quoting some of my previous writings.
When I was a senior in high school, I wrote some political essays for the Oceanside High School newspaper, Sider Press. I wrote an essay about the nuclear danger just before the Cuban missile crisis erupted. I commented:
On a recent television program, Howard K. Smith made the extraordinary statement that President Kennedy was experiencing a decline in popularity because there was no great crisis for him to overcome. Mr. Smith overlooked one extremely important crisis—that of the threatened nuclear holocaust.
If President Kennedy were to effect a decrease in world tension during the next two years, he would undoubtedly be returned to office. The stage would then be set for the president to work toward a successful disarmament agreement during the next four years. If the president accomplished this task, he would become one of the most popular presidents in the nation’s history.
The essay went on to recommend cultural exchanges and a compromise to achieve an end to nuclear testing. “What we need most is for both sides to make a sincere effort to bring about a decrease in world tension. President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev should acknowledge the fact that nuclear war would result in the destruction of mankind. There would be no winner in the event of a nuclear catastrophe.” Before my essay appeared in print, Cold War tensions and the danger of nuclear war reached a peak with the Cuban missile crisis. Eight months after the confrontation over Cuba was resolved by diplomacy, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed on the Limited Test Ban Treaty.
I explored the significance of the events of 1962 and 1963 in an essay published in The Japan Times in 1999:
...the experience of the missile crisis led Kennedy to move away from seeing foreign policy as a tough competitive game. He came to appreciate the human stakes involved. He was, after all, a parent of young children as well as a president.
In a speech at American University on June 10, 1963, Kennedy indicated the changes in his thinking. He said that the U.S. should seek a “genuine peace“ so that nations can “build a better life for their children” rather than a “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.“
Casting a critical eye on cold war attitudes, Kennedy sought to “make the world safe for diversity.” He stressed that “we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
Members of Massachusetts Peace Action, an organization to which I belong, have also been highlighting Kennedy’s American University speech. It’s possible for individuals and presidents to think anew, and it’s dearly needed at a time of the genocide in Gaza and the ongoing and dangerous war in Ukraine.
Shortly after he was inaugurated president, I wrote to Ronald Reagan asking him to accept Leonid Brezhnev’s suggestion that they meet in a summit conference:
I am very concerned about the escalation in anti-Soviet rhetoric that has characterized your first weeks in office. A return to 1950s rhetoric can only lead to increasing tensions between our country and the Soviet Union. Such tensions can bring us to the brink of nuclear war again. And who knows if once at the brink, you will be able to stop from falling over into a nuclear holocaust that would destroy us all... Are you afraid that if peace breaks out, you will find it more difficult to line the pockets of the defense contractors with still more billions of taxpayers’ dollars? Whatever your... fears, I believe you should fear nuclear war more. The overwhelming desire of the peoples of the world is to see an end to the nuclear arms race which threatens us all.
Reagan’s initial aggressive posture led to the development of a massive nuclear freeze movement in the U.S. and a movement in Europe against accepting new U.S. intermediate range nuclear weapons. I was among over 1 million people in New York City on June 12 ,1982 demanding that all sides add no new weapons to their nuclear arsenals. It was the nuclear freeze movement, which the Soviet Union supported, and the Reagan administration attacked, that eventually led to a reversal in Reagan’s policy and the adoption of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987. Initiatives by a new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, also played a part in Reagan’s change.
About a decade after Reagan left the White House, I was a Fulbright scholar at Tohoku University in Japan. When I arrived in Japan, I mentioned at the initial Fulbright scholar gathering my birth date, my opposition to nuclear weapons, and my experience as part of a generation involved in peace and civil rights activism. Two others around the table, Lois Helmbold, a historian who became a close friend, and Sam Sheppard, the director of the Fulbright program in Japan, mentioned they were also born in 1945. In interviews I’ve conducted with members of my birth cohort, it seemed clear that most of us were influenced by Kennedy’s idea that “the world is very different now.” As San Antonio playwright Sterling Houston put it in my interview with him: “Coming of age in the 60s when there was this ferment [and] the possibilities of change and all this stuff was happening... It seemed like it really could happen... we really could make it better.”
The most memorable experience of my stay in Japan was the visit my younger daughter Leah and I took to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and the Children’s Peace Monument in Peace Memorial Park. We were already aware of the story of Sadako Sasaki and the folding of paper cranes. Seeing the exhibits in the museum, the monuments, the film Hiroshima: A Mother’s Prayer, and the thousands of cranes in the park brought both of us to tears.
With the danger of nuclear war, greater than ever, we need a renewed grassroots movement to support the eradication of nuclear weapons from the planet.
In an essay published in The Japan Times after I returned home, I commented on the impact of the visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and my concern that Japan was sending 600 soldiers to join the U.S. occupation of Iraq. I mentioned my fear that the government of Japan was undermining the country’s peace constitution. The New York Times article on Japan’s military mission emphasized that the U.S. “imposed” the peace constitution on Japan, but I pointed out the Times failed to note “the strong desire of the Japanese people after the war to break with the militarism and aggression that had brought enormous harm and suffering to Japan’s neighbors and disaster to Japan itself.” I added that “I learned from my time in Japan that strong sentiments for peace and opposition against nuclear arms persist to this day.”
I learned a great deal from the peace museum’s “documentation of the many times my government has threatened to use nuclear weapons and of the continuing advocacy of nuclear disarmament by the citizens and leaders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” I argued, that “at a time when a neoconservative clique seeking world hegemony plays a leading role in U.S. foreign policy formation... Japan’s antinuclear advocacy is needed now more than ever.”
Commemorations of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are taking place throughout the world this week. On August 6, 2025, United Nations Under-Secretary-General Izumi Nakamitsu issued a statement to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial on behalf of United Nations Secretary General António Guterres:
...today the risk of nuclear conflict is growing. Trust is eroding. Geopolitical divisions are widening. And the very weapons that brought such devastation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are once again being treated as tools of coercion.
Yet, there are signs of hope.
Last year, the Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo—which represents the survivors of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings—was awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize for its tireless work in raising awareness about this critical issue.
We must focus our attention on the genocide in Gaza and the “escalating violence” and “forced displacement” in the West Bank, the continuing war in Ukraine, and the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. With the danger of nuclear war, greater than ever, we need a renewed grassroots movement to support the eradication of nuclear weapons from the planet.
Nuclear arms agreements among the nuclear powers are nearly defunct. The people who live in the nuclear armed states need to pressure their governments to eliminate their nuclear stockpiles and instead pursue diplomacy with all the other nations of the world rather than nuclear intimidation.
The United Nations notes that September 26 “The International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons has been observed annually since 2014.” The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted by the United Nations entered into force on January 22, 2021. We the people of the states possessing nuclear weapons must do all in our power to persuade our governments to ratify the treaty and implement its provisions that will lead to a world without nuclear weapons. The survival of humanity is at stake.
This piece was originally published on Martin Halpern’s Substack, A Marxist Writing and Making History.
"It is well past time that the U.S., E.U., and other powerful actors in the international community seriously reconsider this cruel and often counterproductive mechanism," said one of the study's authors.
A study published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet Global Health revealed that unilateral economic sanctions cause more than 500,000 excess deaths annually, prompting renewed calls for the United States to end its use of a form of collective punishment that claims roughly as many lives as all the world's current wars combined.
The study, authored by Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón, and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), is the first to examine the "effects of sanctions on age-specific mortality rates in cross-country panel data using methods designed to address causal identification in observational data."
Studying the effects of sanctions on 152 countries between 1971 and 2022, the researchers "showed a significant causal association between sanctions and increased mortality," with "the strongest effects for unilateral, economic, and U.S. sanctions."
"We estimated that unilateral sanctions were associated with an annual toll of 564,258 deaths," the study's authors noted, "similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict."
🚨 NEW REPORT: The myth that sanctions are a humane alternative to war is shattered. Sanctions imposed by single countries cause massive civilian deaths, with children under 5 hit hardest. bit.ly/Sanctions_Study
[image or embed]
— Center for Economic and Policy Research (@ceprdc.bsky.social) July 23, 2025 at 6:14 AM
Weisbrot, CEPR's co-director, said in a statement: "It is immoral and indefensible that such a lethal form of collective punishment continues to be used, let alone that it has been steadily expanded over the years. And sanctions are widely misunderstood as being a less lethal, almost nonviolent, policy alternative to military force."
The researchers found that children younger than 5 years old made up 51% of all sanctions deaths during the three-decade study period. More than three-quarters of all sanctions deaths between 1971-2022 were of children under age 15 and people over 60.
The study also noted the repeated failure of U.S. sanctions to deliver policy goals like regime change. However, such measures have caused economies to collapse, harming everyday people far more than ostensibly targeted leaders, who have the power and resources to shield themselves from the worst effects of sanctions.
"Sanctions often fail to achieve their stated objectives and instead only punish the civilian populations of the targeted countries," said Rodríguez. "It is well past time that the U.S., [European Union], and other powerful actors in the international community seriously reconsider this cruel and often counterproductive mechanism."
For six decades, the U.S. has imposed a crippling economic embargo on Cuba that has adversely affected all sectors of the socialist island's economy and severely limited Cubans' access to basic necessities including food, fuel, and medicines. The Cuban government claims the blockade cost the country's economy nearly $5 billion in just one 11-month period in 2022-23 alone. United Nations member states have perennially—and overwhelmingly—condemned the embargo.
In Venezuela, as many as 40,000 people died in 2017-18 due to U.S. sanctions, CEPR researchers found.
Some critics have noted that civilian suffering appears to be more than an incidental cost of U.S. sanctions—it is apparently often their very intent. Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.—a confidant of former President John F. Kennedy—claimed that JFK sought to unleash "the terrors of the Earth" on Cuba following Fidel Castro's successful overthrow of a U.S.-backed dictatorship, because "Castro was high on his list of emotions."
While the new study "found no statistical evidence of an effect" for United Nations sanctions, Mary Smith Fawzi and Sarah Zaidi conducted research for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization that was published in The Lancet in 1995 and revealed that as many as 576,000 Iraqi children died prematurely as a result of sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council—whose sanctioning capacity was heavily influenced by the United States—to target the regime of longtime Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"Discussions in the 1990s on the effects on child mortality of sanctions on Iraq strongly influenced policy debates and were one of the main drivers of the subsequent redesign of sanctions on the government of Saddam Hussein," the authors of the new study wrote, citing Fawzi and Zaidi's research.
With Hussein's regime unmoved by the sanctions, Madeleine Albright, then U.S. secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, was asked if the human cost was too high. Albright infamously replied that "the price is worth it."
One critic called the move "a desperate attempt to distract from the Trump administration's decision to block the release of the Epstein files."
As U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans stonewall efforts to keep the full files on deceased financier and convicted child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein under wraps, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Monday released a long-anticipated massive trove of documents related to the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., despite opposition from his family.
"Today, after nearly 60 years of questions surrounding the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we are releasing 230,000 MLK assassination files, available now at https://archives.gov/mlk," Gabbard said on the social media site X. "The documents include details about the FBI's investigation into the assassination of MLK, discussion of potential leads, internal FBI memos detailing the progress of the case, information about James Earl Ray's former cellmate who stated he discussed with Ray an alleged assassination plot, and more."
"Thanks to President Donald Trump's leadership, Executive Order 14176 resulted in three, unprecedented interagency efforts to identify, digitize, declassify, and release files related to the federal government's investigations into the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. King," Gabbard added.
However, many of the MLK documents remain heavily redacted.
Responding to the MLK files' publication, the King family said in a statement: "As the children of Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King, his tragic death has been an intensely personal grief—a devastating loss for his wife, children, and the granddaughter he never met—an absence our family has endured for over 57 years. We ask those who engage with the release of these files to do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family's continuing grief."
Statement from the King Family on the Release of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Assassination Files:
[image or embed]
— Martin Luther King III (@officialmlk3.bsky.social) July 21, 2025 at 1:00 PM
The King family reiterated their belief that "someone other than James Earl Ray was the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame."
"As we review these newly released files, we will assess whether they offer additional insights beyond the findings our family has already accepted," their statement said.
As his relatives noted, the FBI infamously surveilled King—America's most hated man, according to a 1968 Harris poll that showed the civil rights icon with a 75% negative approval rating—under the notorious COINTELPRO program, especially after his civil rights activism evolved into staunch critiques of U.S. militarism during the escalating Vietnam War and capitalism-driven economic inequality.
Then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy authorized the wiretapping of King's phone, with the head agent in charge of COINTELPRO, William Sullivan, warning that "we must mark [King]... as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation." This, just before King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for helping to lead the struggle against Jim Crow segregation and disenfranchisement.
The FBI systematically bugged King's home and hotel rooms, mailed an anonymous letter urging him to kill himself, and even sent a tape of what it claimed was King having one of his numerous alleged affairs to his wife. When King criticized the FBI for ignoring the heinous and often murderous crimes of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists who were still lynching Black people with alarming regularity and impunity, an infuriated Hoover publicly called him the "most notorious liar" in America.
People from across the political spectrum took to social media to slam the MLK document dump as "a desperate attempt to distract from the Trump administration's decision to block the release of the Epstein files (despite earlier promises)," as the X account Republicans Against Trump portrayed the move.
Prominent attorney and Democratic strategist Aaron Parnas wrote on the social media site Bluesky, "Whether through releasing the MLK files or trying to prosecute President [Barack] Obama, Donald Trump is flooding the zone with information to distract you from the Epstein files."
Bernice King—MLK's granddaughter and CEO of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change—wrote on X: "Now, do the Epstein files."
My wish for you in 2024 is to imbibe this wisdom and act on it: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.
Dear Joe,
I would wish you a Happy New Year; but it seems trite and banal, given all the challenges and troubles you and our country face in 2024—some inherited from previous administrations, others of your own making.
Americans are 10 times more likely to be shot to death than people in other wealthy countries, with homicides, suicides, and mass shootings on the increase. For the past four years, mass murders have skyrocketed into the 600s per year, breaking all past records. Since 2020 more children and teens are killed by firearms than any other cause.
Don’t these sound like war statistics?
Yes, you have established the first White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. But it is rare to find anyone in your administration making the connection between our country’s record-breaking gun violence at home and our country’s record-breaking military weapons sales across the world, to democracies and autocracies alike, having grown dramatically over the past five years. To restate, isn’t it possible that the U.S. global culture of weapons and militarism, with nearly 100 military bases ringing the world, and our long and persistent history of war (nearly 40 in your and my lifetime) rebounds back to infect our violent culture here at home?
You are generous with weapons, but dismissive of dialogue where it is most needed.
The U.S. pledged $17.5 million to a loss and damage fund for poor countries vulnerable to extreme climate damage (for which the U.S. is more responsible than any other country) at the 2023 U.N. climate conference while doling out over $100 billion in weapons and military aid in the same year to feed and fuel wars in Gaza and Ukraine, wars that destroy and contaminate, likely irreparably, the homeland and ecosystems of those peoples who survive these wars and genocide in the case of Gaza. Crumbs for climate crisis and ruined ecosystems fall from the master’s table, while feasts of weapons abound.
Our habit of war “has yielded a host of perverse results here at home,” writes war veteran and noted historian of American military history, Andrew Bacevich. Neither have our wars brought about “peace [or democracy] by even the loosest definition of the word… the opposite in most case[s].” His wise counsel: Discard militarism in favor of “prudence and pragmatism.”
You often state proudly that we are the strongest military in the world, as if it is a crown of excellence, when in fact it is a crown of thorns on our country, which hangs on a cross of iron. As former president Dwight Eisenhower memorably said in 1953: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
What felonious theft our military budget is from the 140 million poor and low-income American people, 40% of U.S. citizens, for whom the crucial Poor People’s Campaign advocates. Forty-four million Americans “struggled with hunger” in 2022, according to USDA. Diseases of despair are rampant. Our life expectancy—a critical marker of people’s overall health—is lower than all comparable wealthy countries and many other countries including China and Cuba. Recall Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s warning: “If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.”
I do wish that that you had read the other Catholic president John F Kennedy’s 1963 peace speech at American University before you met recently in San Francisco with Xi Jinping, president of the People’s Republic of China. At the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev opened a line of communication and held many secret talks, despite monumental political differences, for the sake of moving away from imminent nuclear war. In his 1963 address at American University, Kennedy, after stating his abhorrence of communism, praised Russia’s key role in saving Europe from Nazism while losing 20 million citizens, and he foregrounded the two countries’ shared humanity: “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
In many diplomatic private talks and communications, also involving Pope John XXIII, Kennedy and Khrushchev laid the groundwork for ending above ground nuclear weapons testing with the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and forging a more peaceful country-to-country relationship. Within six-and-a-half months President Kennedy was assassinated, with the CIA strongly implicated.
Xi’s remarks to a gathering of business leaders, following your more private meeting with him last November, manifests a kinship with JFK’s speech. He displayed respect for our country’s accomplishments (even if for self-serving reasons) and advocated the two countries accept political diversity in a multipolar world. Joe, if you had listened more deeply, you may have given a wiser response to a reporter’s question than your dismissive, “Yes, I think Xi is a dictator” —an off-the cuff remark that conveys little wisdom or will to work together to rescue the world from war and climate crisis and to live in a multipolar, diverse world. You are generous with weapons, but dismissive of dialogue where it is most needed.
My wish for you in 2024 is to imbibe this wisdom and act on it: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the core of the Torah, the New Testament, the Quran, and other religious traditions. Make it your own, end the U.S. addiction to war, and save your country’s soul and your own.
A Response to John Feffer’s “Peace Activists Should Be Clamoring for Peace on Ukrainian Terms.”
John Feffer’s recent article “Peace Activists Should Be Clamoring for Peace on Ukrainian Terms” rests its argument on the delusional premise that the way to end a war you aren’t winning is to demand that the other side surrender. At least, I think the author wants to end the war—maybe not. Maybe some version of “forever war” is the desired goal. It will certainly be the result.
Take Jeddah. The article expresses satisfaction that Russia wasn’t invited to this “peace” conference, intended to bring the Global South more in line with Western goals. What’s worrisome, in terms of a reality check, is that this is either spin or a genuine failure to hear what some major Global South voices were saying.
“If we really want peace,” said the head of Brazil’s delegation, “we must involve Moscow in some way in this process.”
The article appears to fall prey to the fallacy that one must approve of one’s adversary to negotiate with them.
An Indian media outlet, citing its own delegate’s neutral stance, commented, “To believe that a peace plan can be developed without Russia being part of the process and its views and concerns taken into account is illusionary.”
Attendees at Jeddah were asked to get behind a list of demands for Russia resembling those dictated to a vanquished enemy. Meanwhile, the article ignores the appalling carnage that is leaving Ukraine’s armed forces shredded. It disregards that, whatever our own assessment may be, Russia sees this fight as existential—as we might if, say, Mexico decided it wanted to join a Russia-China military alliance that could then put missiles on our border.
The writer points with satisfaction to generalized approval of sovereignty at Jeddah, but what does this even mean? Ukraine is most clearly in jeopardy, but Russia perceives its own as threatened by a hostile military alliance on its doorstep, and what about the people of Crimea and Donbass, who may want a say in their fate? Remember Kosovo? And what does any of this portend for hotspots like Taiwan, where Richard Nixon recognized Chinese sovereignty 50 years ago? Insisting on “my way or the highway,” with jaw dropping inconsistency, will land us to WWIII. There’s so much to be worked out.
The article appears to fall prey to the fallacy that one must approve of one’s adversary to negotiate with them. It brings up Russia’s prosecution of dissidents—certainly deplorable and undemocratic—though, incidentally, it doesn’t note Ukraine’s prosecution of pacifist leader Yurii Sheliazhenko or Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s consolidation of all TV media into one state-run entity and banning of 11 political parties (none of them on the ultra-right). On the other hand, the writer’s disparagement of “erstwhile lovers of diplomacy,” his insistence that any peace agreement be entirely on Ukraine’s terms, and his dark allusions to Hitler—the go-to trope when the U.S. wants war with anyone anywhere—make one wonder whether this whole exercise is about seeking, not a pathway to a just peace, but a forever villain for a forever war—that can end only in a Pax Americana, if at all.
Tellingly, the article omits missed chances for peace over many years, including the Minsk talks that former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and later former French President Francois Hollande publicly admitted were intended by the West, not for full implementation but to buy time for Ukraine to arm for war. Then there was the tentative agreement brokered between Ukraine and Russia one month into the war, which could have seen Russia withdraw to pre-February 2022 lines in return for Ukraine’s neutrality—quietly nixed by the West, where it’s seldom mentioned, although Kyiv’s West-leaning Ukrainian Pravda ran the headline “Possibility of talks Between Zelensky and Putin came to a halt after Johnson’s visit.” That was tens of thousands of lost Ukrainian and Russian lives ago.
Throughout history humanity has too often succumbed to its impulse toward war when fed an un-nuanced version of reality. As a case in point, this article intimates that Russia is solely to blame for cessation of the grain deal—no mention of the West’s failure to uphold its end by freeing up Russia’s fertilizer shipments, blocked by sanctions preventing Russia from using SWIFT to pay shipping insurance. Nor do we hear of Russia’s offer to resume the deal if the West fulfills its side. Without the whole story, we’re susceptible to the kind of good vs. evil narratives that catapult us into war, with our adversary mirroring our anger and suspicion. Russia now sees the West as “not agreement capable.”
Humanity is having trouble not letting its instinct for confrontation lead it to literally blow itself off the face of the Earth. Whatever we think of Russia and its security fears, shouldn’t we work to “avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating defeat or nuclear war”? No, those aren’t Putin talking points; they’re the words of John F. Kennedy. No wonder the Global South, watching from the sidelines, is nervous.
Significantly, the article barely notes this war’s costs and dangers—in human lives, environmental destruction, money squandered on weapons, world poverty unattended—not to mention risk of nuclear war with repeated escalations. Given the unfolding tragedy, a diplomatic solution for as just a peace as possible is dearly and urgently needed.