

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.
"Trump again says the quiet part out loud—America entered the Iran war to support a genocidal ethno-state and brutal absolute autocracies, all of whom are his political and commercial financiers."
During his campaign for reelection, one of President Donald Trump's central pitches was that the US needed to stay out of foreign wars in order to prioritize "America first."
But his decision to join Israel and launch a massive war with Iran, which has caused turmoil across the American economy, has left many voters rather skeptical of these motivations, believing the war benefits other nations—particularly Israel—more than the US.
That perception has not been assuaged by statements from officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who acknowledged in the early days of the war that a so-called "imminent threat" to the US only existed because Israel had planned to attack, or by the president's recent comment that he doesn't "think about Americans' financial situation" regarding the war.
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News on Thursday, Trump appeared to further affirm that the Iran invasion's impact on his own country is far from top-of-mind.
Trump was asked by Hannity about his weekslong effort to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed in response to the war's launch, causing a spike in global oil prices that has hit the US. Reopening the strait has become one of Trump's main demands as he pushes for a deal with Iran, even though it was open before the war began.
But Trump said on Thursday that other countries "need the strait more than we need it open." He cited his administration's aggressive expansion of oil drilling, which he has claimed would make the US more resilient to the oil shock, although it hasn't been enough to stop gas prices from soaring above $4.50/gallon on average.
"We don't need it at all," Trump said, to which Hannity responded incredulously, "We don't need it at all?"
"We don't need it at all," Trump reiterated. “I mean, you could make the case, you know, like why are we even, we’re doing it to help Israel, and to help Saudi Arabia, and to help Qatar and [the United Arab Emirates] and, you know, Kuwait and other countries, Bahrain—”
Hannity interjected: "It also helps China."
Speaking of his summit this week with Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping, Trump said: "Actually, I told him today, I said, 'You know, we're helping you, and we're helping you in another way,' because I don't think they want, I don't think China wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon either.'"
Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in a written statement to Congress in March that Iran had not tried to rebuild its nuclear enrichment capability after earlier US and Israeli attacks last June, which undercut one of the administration's primary rationales for war.
Trump's former National Counterterrorism Center director, Joe Kent, said last week that the US intelligence community agreed in the days leading up to the war that "Iran wasn’t developing a nuclear weapon,” but said that these assessments were undermined by persuasion from "a foreign government—Israel," which "won the argument and forced us into this war."
Many of the US's Persian Gulf allies have publicly tried to distance themselves from the war, especially in the face of retaliation from Iran. But The Associated Press has reported that countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain have pushed Trump behind the scenes to continue escalating the war in an effort to weaken Iran militarily and force more permanent changes to the regime.
Some have noted the Trump family’s close personal ties to the Gulf regimes—from his family’s cryptocurrency venture which is buoyed by a $500 million investment from a powerful member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family; to his son in law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, which has received $2 billion from Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund; to his real estate empire which has lucrative Trump-branded properties popping up across the region.
Independent journalist Borzou Daragahi said that with his latest comments, "Trump again says the quiet part out loud—America entered the Iran war to support a genocidal ethno-state and brutal absolute autocracies, all of whom are his political and commercial financiers."
Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal called for an immediate end to the US blockade, warning that "we are contributing to immense suffering in Cuba and a worsening humanitarian crisis."
The director of the US Central Intelligence Agency met with Cuban officials in Havana on Thursday after the island nation's government said it had completely run out of fuel due to the Trump administration's oil blockade.
The CIA's X account posted photos of some of Director John Ratcliffe's meetings, blurring the faces of US intelligence officials who accompanied the agency chief. In a statement, the CIA said it met with Raúl Rodríguez Castro, the grandson of former Cuban President Raúl Castro; Interior Minister Lázaro Álvarez Casas; and the head of Cuba's intelligence services.
Havana, Cuba pic.twitter.com/7S7TtJPyf5
— CIA (@CIA) May 14, 2026
"This is one of the most sinister and ominous social media posts I've ever seen," legal scholar Maryam Jamshidi wrote in response to the CIA photos.
Ratcliffe, the highest-ranking Trump administration official to visit Cuba, decided to visit "to personally deliver President Donald Trump's message that the United States is prepared to seriously engage on economic and security issues, but only if Cuba makes fundamental changes," the CIA said.
A CIA official told NewsNation that "while the director emphasized that President Trump prefers dialogue, the Cubans should have no illusions that the President will not enforce red lines."
Trump has repeatedly threatened to seize Cuba by force, describing the island country as his next military target after Venezuela and Iran. Fears of an imminent military attack have grown in recent weeks amid Trump's belligerent rhetoric and surging US surveillance flights off Cuba's coast.
"I think I can do anything I want with [Cuba], if you want to know the truth," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in March. "A very weakened nation."
"This failed policy needs to end immediately. Every day, we are contributing to immense suffering in Cuba and a worsening humanitarian crisis."
The spy chief's trip came a day after Cuba's energy minister announced that months after Trump imposed an oil blockade on the island, "we have absolutely no fuel oil, absolutely no diesel."
The same day, the US State Department dangled "$100 million in direct humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people." Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla said Cuba's leadership is "willing to hear the details of the offer and the manner in which it would be implemented."
"We hope it is free of political maneuvers and attempts to exploit the shortages and suffering of a people under siege," he added. "The best aid that the US government could provide to the noble Cuban people at this or any time is to de-escalate the measures of the energy, economic, commercial, and financial blockade, intensified as never before in recent months, which severely affects all sectors of the Cuban economy and society."
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel echoed that sentiment, writing in a Thursday social media post that "the damage could be alleviated in a much easier and more expeditious way by lifting or easing the blockade, as it is well known that the humanitarian situation is coldly calculated and induced."
Progressive lawmakers in the US are imploring the Trump administration to end US economic warfare against Cuba, engage diplomatically with the country, and drop any plans for a military assault.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who has come under attack from Republican lawmakers for visiting Cuba in April, said Thursday that "Cuba has run out of diesel and fuel oil and is enduring some of the worst blackouts in decades because of the US’ cruel oil blockade."
"This failed policy needs to end immediately," said Jayapal. "Every day, we are contributing to immense suffering in Cuba and a worsening humanitarian crisis."
“You can only decrease consumption so much, and when inventories run out, they are going to run out,” said one energy industry expert.
The global energy crisis caused by President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran is set to worsen in the coming months, as The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the world is "burning through its oil safety net."
Even though oil prices surged at the start of the war, which led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz to commercial ships, that increase was temporarily mitigated by crude surpluses that allowed countries to add more petroleum to the market.
However, the Journal reported that those reserve stocks are being depleted at an unprecedented pace, with inventories declining by nearly 250 million barrels in just the first two months of the conflict.
This rapid drawdown has led oil executives and analysts to warn that "a harsh reckoning is set to upend the relative calm in energy markets" as "acute shortages of key fuels and soaring prices could emerge within weeks if the Strait of Hormuz remains shut," according to the Journal.
The Journal cited a report from consulting firm Eurasia Group estimating that, at the current rate of depletion, US diesel reserves are set to fall below 100 million barrels for the first time in 23 years by the end of this month.
Ellen Wald, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, told the Journal that while the increased price of oil would be partially offset by a decrease in consumption, the sheer scale of the coming supply crunch is so big that prices will continue to spiral upward.
“You can only decrease consumption so much, and when inventories run out, they are going to run out,” Wald explained. “At some point the market is going to collide and prices are going to shoot up.”
This problem could be exacerbated further if Trump decides to renew attacks on Iran, which could lead to devastating Iranian counterstrikes on oil production facilities throughout the region.
Zeteo reported on Thursday that "preparations for an imminent new phase of Trump’s Iran war have accelerated," as the president "has grown increasingly frustrated by the state of peace talks."
According to Zeteo's sources, the US military campaign is set to ramp up shortly after Trump returns from his visit to China, with options that include "a potential massive new bombing campaign against the Iranians."
The US military bombed Iranian military targets and civilian infrastructure throughout the early weeks of the conflict, but the country has still refused to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
With peace talks stalled and the prospect of renewed hostilities on the table, the price of Brent crude futures surged on Friday, topping more than $108 per barrel.
Average gas prices in the US remained above $4.50 on Friday, and petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan estimated on Thursday that prices could soon jump to over $5 per gallon if the Strait of Hormuz isn't opened soon.
What should be done in places where there is no Mamdani movement, no Working Families Party, no Democratic Socialists of America, or any effort whatsoever to rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up for the benefit of working people?
When the polls close next November, about half the country will flash red within seconds. That’s because there are more than 130 congressional districts where Democrats lose by 25 points or more.
So, what’s the strategy for changing that?
That question—and why so many of us seem unable or unwilling to answer it—is at the heart of my new book, The Billionaires Have Two Parties, We Need a Party of Our Own.
There are only two options. The first is to dramatically reform the Democratic Party so that it once again speaks to and for working people. The second is to build a new independent party of working people, distinct from the two major parties.
Neither path is easy. But which one actually has a chance?
The road to reforming the Democratic Party is long—and incredibly steep
Take West Virginia. From 1948 to 1964, the state sat safely in the Democratic column. From 1968 through 1992, it swung back and forth. Bill Clinton still won 52 percent there in 1996. But after that, the Democratic vote collapsed—to 30 percent for Biden and 28 percent for Harris.
Can working-class candidates actually gain traction in red states? There’s evidence that they can—if they run as independents on a bold, progressive-populist economic platform.
The decline in state politics has been even worse. In 2024, Republicans held all but 11 of the 134 seats in the state legislature. In 49 races, Democrats didn’t even field a candidate.
What happened?
The Democrats came to be seen as the enemy of coal—and therefore the enemy of jobs. Worse still, they offered no serious replacement. Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over,” which meant the government would no longer create jobs directly. The era of New Deal-style public job creation was over too.
Into that vacuum stepped the private sector, helping turn West Virginia into the opioid capital of America, with the highest overdose death rate in the nation.
So how exactly is anyone supposed to reform the Democratic Party in West Virginia—or in any other deeply red state? It’s not happening. In these places there is no Mamdani movement, no Working Families Party, no Democratic Socialists of America rebuilding the party from the ground up. The reality is that red America is being written off. The progressive strategy now is to win primaries in blue and purple districts.
Build a New Working-Class Independent Movement?
Dan Osborn in Nebraska offers another path.
A former local union president who led a strike against Kellogg, Osborn is now running for Senate for the second time against what he calls the “two-party doom loop.” He lost by six points in 2024 but ran 15 points ahead of Harris. The Democrats did not run a candidate. Now, according to recent polls, he’s in a neck-and-neck race.
It will be an enormous battle. Because he’s running for Senate rather than the House, huge sums of money will pour in to defeat him. But he is still likely to perform far better than Nebraska Democrats—and that tells us something important about how to challenge power in ruby-red America.
Can working-class candidates actually gain traction in red states?
There’s evidence that they can—if they run as independents on a bold, progressive-populist economic platform.
In a YouGov survey we conducted of 3,000 voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, we asked whether they would support a new “Independent Workers Political Association” (a name we invented) that would back independent candidates outside the two major parties.
We paired the question with a short but strongly progressive platform:
Overall, an astonishing 57 percent supported the fictional organization—including 40 percent of Trump voters and 70 percent of voters under 30.
When we isolated the most rural voters, we found:
Support for the Independent Workers Political Association
None of this guarantees success. Building a new political organization takes time, money, discipline, and enormous commitment. Right now, all we have are a handful of independents running here and there.
What we really need is for major labor unions to test this path seriously.
Over the next decade, it’s possible that a dozen working-class independents could make it to Congress and form a genuine working-class caucus. That alone would be a major breakthrough.
These are exactly the questions I take up in The Billionaires Have Two Parties, We Need a Party of Our Own: why the Democrats collapsed across much of working-class America, why independent working-class politics keeps reemerging, and what it would actually take to build durable political power outside the two-party system. If we are serious about progressives competing in red America, we need more than protest votes and nostalgia. We need a strategy.
Over the next decade, it’s possible that a dozen working-class independents could make it to Congress and form a genuine working-class caucus. That alone would be a major breakthrough.
But what if we fail?
Let the late Tony Mazzocchi, founder of the Labor Party in the 1990s, faced up to that question:
“I just look at building the Labor Party as something that has got to be done. I think the chances of defeat are greater than the chances of success—appreciably greater… And not to have tried would have been more tragic than to have tried and been defeated.”
The question is no longer whether working people are angry. The question is how best they can build a political home of their own.