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
ralph nader
An Open Letter to Mayor-Elect Mamdani, a Political Moderate
The social democratic countries in Europe and other countries, including Canada, have long had much broader social safety nets that go far beyond what you have proposed. There's a deeper reason the oligarchy does not like you.
Dec 06, 2025
Dear Mayor-elect Mamdani,
It should not come as a surprise to alert citizens that your decisive victory in the Mayoral race has prompted your opponents – the privileged super-rich and their indentured servants in City Hall – to label you as an “extremist,” “radical,” or, in Trump’s view, a “communist.” How ludicrous! Your affordability agenda is hardly immoderate. Many Democratic politicians have taken these positions over time.
Free bus fares exist in some municipalities in the U.S., including Kansas City, Missouri, Tucson, Arizona, and Alexandria, Virginia. Proposing half a dozen city-run grocery stores in New York City’s “food deserts” (meaning a geographic area with limited access to affordable, healthy food options) is hardly radical. You could even have them structure these stores as consumer cooperatives (owned by consumers). Food co-ops have existed in numerous communities in the U.S. for years. Your rent stabilization proposal is not uncommon – many large cities have rent controls to protect powerless tenants from avaricious landlords, especially from today’s very large corporate landlords with their fine-print contract peonage. Also, there are cities in the U.S. offering partially publicly subsidized child care. New Mexico just launched a statewide universal child‑care program.
The social democratic countries in Europe and other countries, including Canada, have long had much broader social safety nets that go far beyond what you have proposed.
What the oligarchy and large corporations really do not like about you is that you are projecting a consistent and wide-ranging voice for the people, the workers, the poor, and the powerless in the corridors of political power of City Hall. They have had long-game statism, or a corporate state, at the local, state, and federal levels, with little opposition by the two-party duopoly.
Regarding your self-description as a democratic socialist, that doesn’t pass the laugh test. You are not arguing for nationalization of banks and insurance companies, utilities, not even, to our knowledge have you called for a “public bank,” which has existed so effectively in North Dakota (now a Republican stronghold) founded in 1919.
Indeed, President Donald Trump has become a corporate socialist par excellence. As The New York Times reported on November 25, 2025, (“$10 Billion and Counting: Trump Administration Snaps Up Stakes in Private Firms”) the Trump administration has de facto partly nationalized an array of private companies for ulterior political motives under the contrived banner of national security. The companies include Intel, U.S. Steel, Westinghouse, MP Materials, Vulcan Elements, and MP Materials. This invites bribery by other means, i.e., a Trump donation in exchange for an administration sweetheart investment. The fabled Central Intelligence Agency now features a venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, ostensibly to fund commercial technologies to fortify the U.S. intelligence community and the Department of Defense. But under Trump, partisan political motives likely will inform the CIA’s investment portfolio.
As for taking a stand on pending legislation ending the unconscionable daily electronic rebate of tens of millions of dollars in stock transaction taxes (a progressive tiny sales tax of one tenth of one percent on stock sales), you have been AWOL despite urgings by your numerous colleagues in the state legislature to sign on to a bill that would end the rebate and specifically allocate the many billions of dollars annually to mass transit, education, health care and environmental protection.
So far, your silence has put you to the RIGHT of former Mayor MICHAEL BLOOMBERG. During his presidential run in 2020, he said:
“Harness the power of the financial system to address America’s most pressing challenges. Introduce a tax of 0.1% on all financial transactions to raise revenue needed to address wealth inequality, and support other measures – such as speed limits on trading – to curb predatory behavior and reduce the risk of destabilizing “flash crashes.”
Note, Bloomberg goes beyond a sales tax on STOCK transactions to include all financial transactions (such as bonds and derivatives).
In addition, a New York Times op-ed of April 17, 2000, by ROBERT E. RUBIN – big banker and former Treasury Secretary under Clinton – wrote, urging increasing revenues, “on a highly progressive basis, for example, by increasing corporate taxes, restoring individual rates, repealing pass-through preferences, AND IMPOSING A FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS TAX (our emphasis).”
Some reporters may wish to ask you, “Why, as a democratic socialist, are you to the RIGHT of Bloomberg and Rubin when it comes to tiny sales tax mostly on Wall Street’s high-frequency stock trades?”
As for your plans to expand the housing supply in New York City to make housing more affordable, all kinds of efforts are underway to do this around the country, including in the California high-priced housing market.
Check out the National Cooperative Bank in Washington, D.C., which provides loans to consumer co-op models in the housing, food, and other areas of economic activity. The Bank was established in 1978 with our support, by the Carter Administration, and then spun off by the Reagan regime. It might be useful in funding your housing and grocery store initiatives.
There is one more example in which you are conventional. So far, you are part of the class of public servants, which we have described as “incommunicados” when it comes to working closely with progressive civic leaders and citizen groups. (See The Incommunicados by Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein https://incommunicadoswatch.org/). Put simply, it is too hard for many progressive advocates to get through to you or your top aides. You may wish to assign a staffer as a liaison to these groups whose ideas, experience, and endurance can be of signal assistance to what will probably be a turbulent tenure.
Be guided by the adage that “NONE OF US ARE AS SMART AS ALL OF US.”
May you succeed and put forces in motion throughout the state and country of a deliberative democracy in successful action with sound civic engagement. The cardinal pillar of a democracy, worthy of the name, is JUSTICE, for without justice there is no freedom and liberty for the people.
We anticipate your considered response.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Bruce Fein
Keep ReadingShow Less
Musk's xAI Is Showing Us Exactly Why We Need Public Interest Lawsuits
When powerful corporations are able to completely circumvent basic democratic accountability, public interest lawsuits are a final backstop to protect the community’s well-being.
Oct 05, 2025
The NAACP and the Southern Environmental Law Center are moving to sue Elon Musk’s xAI artificial intelligence company for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. The company has been accused of illegally operating several dozen diesel-fueled turbines to power Musk’s “Colossus,” a massive data center located on an old industrial lot.
According to SELC, the company operated those generators to power Colossus—and released toxic pollutants—without even applying for a permit to use them.
This entire saga is an excellent example of why public interest lawsuits and strong environmental regulations are critically important. Unfortunately, both are under attack on multiple fronts. The Trump administration and the US Supreme Court have both moved to seriously weaken the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The White House and the Roberts court, joined by many “supply-side liberals” and proponents of the “abundance agenda,” are also attempting to impeach environmental regulation and public interest lawsuits in the court of public opinion.
Musk’s Memphis misadventures are a case in point of why that’s so dangerous.
No prominent abundance proponent has even attempted to square Musk’s actions with their insistence that we need to remove opportunities to sue to block development.
Colossus went into operation while adroitly sidestepping the democratic process. By dangling promises of tax revenues and economic development, xAI was able to begin operating its massive data center with even some city officials totally oblivious to the process. A company representative who was supposed to speak at a public meeting with the county commission played hooky. Add it all up and it demonstrates how, especially at the local level, powerful corporations are able to completely circumvent basic democratic accountability. In those cases, public interest lawsuits are a final backstop to protect the community’s well-being.
When the government refuses to enforce the laws and allows corporations to run amok, it falls to activists and community groups to force its hand. This is the central premise of Public Citizen founder Ralph Nader’s decades of progressive politics, and something that many centrist Democratic pundits have begun to deride.
What such pundits invariably miss, however, is that despite Nader’s successes, there are still innumerable instances where governments fail to hold powerful corporate interests accountable. In an emblematic example, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson argue in their bestseller Abundance that, while Nader’s approach was important in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we are now at a juncture where such litigation serves mostly to delay important policy implementation and no longer serves a critical purpose. But for all too many disproportionately poor and majority-minority communities like South Memphis, a public interest lawsuit of the sort denigrated in sweeping fashion by pundits is their last, and honestly only, means of protecting themselves.
The framework deployed by the abundance movement, which is echoed by the Trump administration and the Supreme Court, assumes away instances like xAI in Memphis. Indeed, no prominent abundance proponent has even attempted to square Musk’s actions with their insistence that we need to remove opportunities to sue to block development.
Unfortunately, Musk’s machinations along the Mississippi are part of a longstanding pattern of the government ignoring, and sometimes engaging in, development that poses acute harms to vulnerable—disproportionately majority-minority and poor—communities. South Memphis has been repeatedly left exposed to toxic waste by exploitative industrial practices and government neglect. The Tennessee Valley Authority dumped its toxic coal ash waste there. The same exact site where Colossus now sits once hosted a polluting factory.
And it isn’t just South Memphis. Across the United States, there are abundant examples of communities hung out to dry. The corridor of petrochemical factories between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana, for example, has been dubbed “Cancer Alley” because its residents are subjected to such high levels of carcinogenic pollution. Other areas with heavy fossil fuel infrastructure are called “sacrifice zones” because of how much cancer and chronic disease residents endure.
Even now waste facilities are almost always sited in poor neighborhoods that don’t have the wealth and political capital to block them. Lawsuits are the final bulwark to defend those communities. Calling for them to taken off the table is dangerous, especially with the White House and Supreme Court eager to ape such talking points to justify removing any means of blockading the whims of the powerful.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls for Impeachment Grow as Trump Floats 'Regime Change' in Iran
The striking of Iranian nuclear sites without congressional approval, said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, "is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."
Jun 23, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump took to social media on Sunday night to express that regime change is on the table for Iran's government, the call from Democratic lawmakers and outside progressive voices for his impeachment continued to grow following the weekend bombing of Iranian nuclear sites.
"It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,'" Trump posted on Sunday night on Truth Social, one day after the U.S. struck three sites in Iran overnight on Saturday. "But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!"
"So we DIDN'T destroy Fordo and we ARE doing regime change? How are there proponents of this anymore?" wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Monday.
On Saturday, the United States dropped several 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Fordo, Iran's heavily fortified nuclear facility. Facilities at Natanz and Isfahan were also targeted.
Independent experts who viewed satellite imagery of the areas told NPR that the strike left Iran's nuclear program damaged but not destroyed.
In remarks on Monday, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said, "Given the explosive payload utilized, and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred." Speaking to the IAEA's board of governors, Grossi called for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Iran so that inspectors could view and assess the damage to the targeted sites.
Prior to the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Iran was not attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
Even before Trump made his comments about regime change on Sunday, multiple Democratic members of Congress took to social media to say that Trump's strikes on Iran constitute an impeachable offense.
"[Trump] has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote on X. "It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."
Meanwhile, Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) wrote on Sunday: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense."
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), "the leading constitutional expert in Congress," should launch an impeachment push. Nader urged Raskin to file an article of impeachment against Trump for "engaging in a major war without a Congressional declaration."
"MAGA claimed to be anti-war when they voted for Trump. Well, he has betrayed you. Time to stand for your principles. Sign the War Powers Resolution and impeach Trump," wrote Saikat Chakrabarti, who is running for Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) seat in Congress.
The journalist Scott Dworkin wrote "Congress must impeach and remove Trump. Period."
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced a war powers resolution in the U.S. House last week, asserting the constitutional requirement of congressional approval for any declaration of war. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced one in the Senate.
Trump's comments about regime change came hours after Trump administration officials told the media earlier on Sunday that getting rid of Iran's leadership is not the administration's goal.
"This mission was not, and has not been, about regime change," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a press conference on Sunday morning. "The president authorized a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program."
Vice President J.D. Vance said on NBC News on Sunday morning: "Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular