SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
One expert critic said the updated request "confirms once again that the president continues to break his promises to lower families' costs and help people who are struggling to make ends meet."
Progressive critics and Democratic lawmakers responded with predictable fury and contempt after President Donald Trump delivered new details for his 2026 budget request in a Friday night news dump that appeared timed to attract as little attention as possible from the voting public.
"It's telling that President Trump has chosen to release his budget on a Friday night with no fanfare whatsoever," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, following the administration's release of approximately 1,200 pages of budget documents. "That's probably because his budget would raise costs for working people, destroy basic services we all count on, and let our adversaries run circles around us—all while President Trump works to shower billionaires like himself in new tax breaks."
Murray added that, for Trump, "it’s no billionaire left behind—and good luck to everyone else."
As his Republican allies in Congress continued work on a major reconciliation bill that would offer sweeping tax cuts to the nation's corporate giants and wealthiest Americans while gutting Medicaid and food assistance programs for the poor, the more detailed budget request from Trump offers a deeper look into the far-right president's desired slash-and-burn approach to the nation's social safety net, valued programs, and key institutions relied upon by tens of millions.
While the topline target of the Trump proposal aims to cut $163 billion from the 2026 fiscal budget, a lack of critical details withheld by the White House appears to be part of a concerted effort to limit public outrage over the impact it would have—on people and communities as well as the overall economy. As the Washington Post's Jeff Stein explains:
With little fanfare, the budget office released 1,224 pages that spell out its spending plans in detail, expanding on the abbreviated "skinny budget" it unveiled this month. So far, though, the administration has addressed only the portion of federal outlays known as discretionary spending, which doesn't cover programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that make up the bulk of the federal budget.
Typically, the White House releases a comprehensive budget proposal each year that provides 10-year estimates of federal spending, revenue and deficits, as well as projections of economic growth, interest rates and other important indexes. These numbers are hotly contested and typically initiate a debate over the White House's priorities. But the Trump administration appears to be trying to avoid that debate, at least for now, by ignoring the traditional process for releasing a budget.
However, slashed funding for key programs is clear throughout the documents released by the administration, with cuts to healthcare initiatives, public education, student loan support, environmental and labor protections, food aid, and housing assistance for low-income Americans among the most prominent.
According to the New York Times:
The updated budget reiterated the president's pursuit of deep reductions for nearly every major federal agency, reserving its steepest cuts for foreign aid, medical research, tax enforcement and a slew of anti-poverty programs, including rental assistance. The White House restated its plan to seek a $33 billion cut at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, and another $33 billion reduction at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Targeting the Education Department, the president again put forward a roughly $12 billion cut, seeking to eliminate dozens of programs while unveiling new changes to Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college.
Sharon Parrott, president of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), said the updated request "confirms once again that the president continues to break his promises to lower families' costs and help people who are struggling to make ends meet."
Parrott emphasized that the updated Trump budget request cannot be separated from what the GOP are trying to push through Congress in their spending package.
"To get the full picture of the administration's harmful agenda requires including the Trump-backed bill under consideration in Congress, which gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, partly paid for by raising costs and taking away health coverage and food assistance from millions," explained Parrott. "Policymakers of both parties in Congress need to see this budget, and this entire agenda, for what it is—an irresponsible tax giveaway at the expense of everyday families and investments in our future—and plan a better course for the country."
An estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which examined an earlier version of Trump's budget, forecasted that the plan would add over $2 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade.
Rep. Brendan F. Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, decried the budget request update as a "half-baked proposal" which only serves to prove Trump's determination "to make life harder for struggling families" nationwide.
"Republicans are already pushing a bill that would inflict the largest losses of health care coverage and food assistance in our nation's history," added Boyle. "This funding request goes even further, decimating critical public- and mental-health programs and slashing housing aid, home-energy support, and job-training grants. Republicans will claim these cuts are about fiscal responsibility, yet they're happy to add trillions to the deficit to shower billionaires with tax breaks."
For his part, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), vowed committed opposition from his party in the upper chamber.
"Trump's radical 2026 budget would be a gut punch to working families and a windfall for billionaires—raising prices for American families while hollowing out the programs critical to families across the country," Schumer said on Saturday. "Senate Democrats will never let it become law."
Trump’s lies are no longer just words; they have deadly and costly effects and can soon produce calamitous consequences.
The chronic lies of Der Führer Trump, hour by hour, day after day, are having deadly and costly impacts on the American people, with many more casualties in the pipeline of wreckage he and his henchman Elon Musk have wrought since January 20.
President Donald Trump’s lies, threats, and fake promises come from what dozens of psychologists who in 2017 perceived Trump as possessing an “unstable, dangerous personality.” Trump, a serial megalomaniac, announced recently: “I RUN THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD.”
Confident that he can violate any law, any constitutional restraint, any international treaty, Dangerous Donald says he is “having fun,” flipping out one illegal executive order after another with cruel and vicious hammer blows against:
The torrent of Trumpian falsehoods have their own mass media—his own social media—and the mainstream media which still reports them out, including repeating his CAPITAL LETTERS, without giving his victims any right of reply, even when they are named. True, the mass media now tells us when some of his wild and crazy concoctions are “false” like his shameless false claim that a picture of graves was purportedly of slain white South African farmers.
But fact-checking doesn’t reach most of the people who receive Trump’s lies. For these people, his carve outs of reality are unrebutted. Unfathomably, reporters do not demand that he, Donald Trump, provide the evidence and the legal basis for his prevarications every single time they impact policy. Rarely, when they do, as in the case of Trump alleging widespread fraud by Social Security recipients, he backed off.
Mostly, however, starting with his endless assertion that he won the 2020 election “in a landslide,” eye-rolling reporters and editors don’t seem to see any point in routinely saying to him: “Prove it or admit you are mistaken.” In the vernacular—“put up or shut up.”
It doesn’t matter that Know-it-all Trump never admits any wrongdoing, any mistake, any failure, or any broken promises to his believing MAGA supporters. What matters is after a while, more and more people begin to see that he’s a fake, a delusionary con man and turn against him and proclaim “YOU’RE FIRED!”
For now, ensconced in the White House, Trump’s lies are no longer just words; they have deadly and costly effects and can soon produce calamitous consequences.
Here are some samples. Trump falsely dismisses with repeated disbelief the violent climate crises—notwithstanding record wildfires, floods, hurricanes, sea-level rise, and droughts. His response to these problems: Push to abolish FEMA, already firing thousands of staff. He is also dismissing scientists who study, document, and predict approaching climate disasters, from federal agencies, including the National Weather Service and the EPA, and cutting grants to scientific organizations and universities.
He continues to scoff at expert predictions of emerging pandemics, as he did in early 2020, mocking and dillydallying, while Covid-19 spread, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. His response to these perils: Strip-mine the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health expert staff and their grants to outside scientists.
He falsely asserts that overregulation of widespread corporate crookery is harming the economy and costing jobs. His response to these falsehoods: Close down agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, firing regulators illegally, taking the federal cops off the corporate crime beat and, recently, just openly failing to enforce the law at all and dropping existing criminal cases against over 100 companies, including the Boeing crimes crashing two 737 Max aircraft.
He absurdly and cravenly asserts the super-rich and giant corporations are overtaxed. His response to this ridiculous allegation: Push through Congress super-rich tax cuts, ballooning the deficit, forcing cuts in Medicaid and even Medicare, afflicting people with disabilities, and closing many rural hospitals (See, New York Times: What’s in Trump’s Tax Bill?) He grotesquely describes this legislation as a “big, beautiful bill” even though it will cut critical feeding programs for poor children, severely weaken “Meals on Wheels,” “Head Start,” and federal food inspection programs.
Millions of people would lose health insurance and other life-saving and life-sustaining social safety nets. Savagely, Trump is increasing the bloated, wasteful military budget far beyond what the generals asked for and loading tens of billions of dollars onto the Department of Homeland Security to police a relatively quiet Southern Border and contract for more private prisons to hold immigrants or asylum seekers whom they round up.
If the Senate doesn’t throw out this House-passed bill (by one vote) and only tweaks it on its way to the enriching Trump and his bloody pen, consider this the beginning of the end for the Republican Party in the coming elections. For Trump is ruthlessly skewering both red and blue state voters and families, breaking contracts with small businesses, rescinding popular clean energy programs, reducing student loans, and roiling the stock markets holding the savings and pensions of tens of millions of conservative and liberal families. He is going berserk against the American people while shielding massive corporate crime and corporate welfare from law and order.
It would help this growing movement of street protests against Trump if, to take two institutions, banding together as labor unions and universities they stop cowering before the Tyrant and roar back with all their unused, formidable influence and members. Bully Donald has come a long way using intimidation to pick off his victims because they do not push back in an organized fashion.
Moreover, the feeble Democratic Party just doesn’t fire its corporate-conflicted consultants, and retire its serial losers controlling its leadership, which lost elections to the worst most vulnerable GOP in history. They should patriotically quit and welcome younger, progressive leaders, some already challenging corporate Democrats in the coming primaries, to take over and replace decay and despair with dynamism and dexterity. These challengers know they are in a race against time and have no time for the lumbering, bureaucratic, disarrayed entrenched Democratic apparatchiks to lose our Republic to a fascistic dictatorship wrecking our country at warp speed.
This younger generation should connect with older, seasoned progressive Democrats who for decades have been fighting for real reforms in our country and are eager to lend their experience and advice. They include former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who in 2001 penned an op-ed in The Washington Post declaring “…The Democratic Party. It’s Dead.” Other stalwarts include Jim Hightower (Texas), Joel Rogers (Wisconsin), Robert Kuttner (Boston), Bishop William Barber (North Carolina), Joan Claybrook (D.C.), Mark Green, co-author with me of the book on Trump titled WRECKING AMERICA (2020), and many others.
These people and others (see winningamerica.net) do not have marbles in their mouths; they know how to communicate with people on forward directions supported by a megamajority of liberal and conservative voters. (See my 2014 book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance To Dismantle The Corporate State).
The way out of neoliberal globalization is by developing a new globalization that is democratic and free from the destructive tendencies of capitalist accumulation.
The left is in shambles everywhere while hard-right and far-right parties are riding high in polls across the world. I contend that globalization is at the heart of these developments, and thus it is critical that the left comes to terms with what has gone wrong with its approach to neoliberal globalization and develops in turn an alternative vision of world order.
Globalization came to be a dominant force in our lives sometime around the 1980s. It coincided with the rise of neoliberalism, although globalization is not a 20th-century phenomenon. The 19th century contained a huge burst of globalization. In fact, between 1850 and 1913, the world economy was probably as open as it became in the late 20th century. Tariffs fell, free trade agreements proliferated, trade flows skyrocketed, information flows accelerated, and migrants flowed to all corners of the globe. Neither Europe nor the U.S. had any restrictions on migration. In the U.S., no visas or passports were even needed to enter the country.
That wave of globalization was interrupted because of World War I, and the next wave of globalization did not occur until the early 1980s. In many ways, the new wave of capitalist globalization was more intense than the one that had preceded it as it was characterized by massive financial deregulation and the acceleration of capital flows while trade integration became more rapid than ever. By the 1990s, the new wave of globalization had reached such heights that the world was increasingly becoming a global village. Let’s call it the neoliberal hyper-globalization wave.
The problem with the reformist left vis-à-vis neoliberal globalization remains. That is, it advances a critique of the consequences of capitalist globalization but seems to accept the phenomenon as inevitable and unalterable.
However, there was one huge qualitative difference between the 19th-century and the late 20th-century waves of globalization. While capital movements exploded during the late 20th-century wave of globalization and multinationals moved across the world in search of cheaper labor, labor migration was severely restricted. In contrast, migration became truly globalized in the late 19th century. And the late 20th-century wave of globalization, which was supposed to produce unrivaled benefits for all, also had another dark side: While it was not openly imperialistic as the 19th-century wave of globalization, it was based nonetheless on highly exploitative structures that were not much different from those of colonialism. After all, capitalism has always nurtured dependence, inequality, and exploitation.
Under the neoliberal hyper-globalization wave, the Global North took advantage of the weakness of the Global South by trapping millions of its workers in a relentless cycle of exploitation while offshoring had dramatic impacts on the standard of living of average citizens back in the Global North as well-paid industrial jobs became few and far in between, wages stagnated, and the social safety net was torn apart, partly because of less government revenues due to neoliberal tax cuts for corporations and the rich and partly on account of simple ideological reasoning. Austerity for the masses but subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts for industry and the financial sector is a central aspect of the ideological agenda of neoliberalism. And while some developing nations did benefit from the great connectivity in the global economy that has been unleashed since the early 1980s, it is primarily the elites in the Global South, as much as it is in the Global North, that gained the most from the neoliberal hyper-globalization wave.
Enter politics.
By the late 1990s, grievances over the direction of the capitalist world economy united people to demand change and an anti-globalization movement surfaced across the globe, protesting specifically against the neoliberal hyper-globalization wave. Protests and demonstrations against the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund became a common feature of the anti-globalization movement across a large number of countries from 1995 to 2018. The anti-globalization movement was inspired by left-wing ideologies and was impressively transnational. Latin America’s anti-globalization movement was especially successful, resulting in support and eventually electoral victory for left-wing parties in scores of countries in the region. Indeed, a database on political institutions reveals that in the early 1990s, 64% of Latin American presidents came from a right-wing party. But a decade later, that number had shrunk to half.
The anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movement was no less prominent in Europe. In the summer of 2001, more than 300,000 people from all over Europe gathered in Genoa, Italy to voice their opposition to the G8 Group, while the Italian police unleashed violence of a dimension unknown up to that point in postwar Western Europe. In the spring of 2002, more than half a million people in Barcelona mobilized against the European Union Heads of State and Government under the banner against Capital and War.
The left is historically obligated to advance an alternative vision of a world order beyond capitalism.
The anti-globalization movement had come of age. The prospects for radical change had never looked more promising than they did during the first decade of the new millennium. The winds of change were still in the air in the second decade of the new millennium as the rise to power of the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) party in Greece brought hope to leftist movements worldwide, although it was abundantly clear to anyone willing to pay close attention to Greek politics at the time that the leadership of the party had made a decision to switch its ideological profile from radicalism to pragmatism in anticipation of its coming to power.
There is indeed one impressive thing about the rapid and sweeping changes brought about by the neoliberal hyper-globalization wave, and that is none other than the fact that the world now spins faster. Extraordinary social, political, and ideological changes can happen from one decade to the next. And, lo and behold, by the end of the second decade of the new millennium, not only did the radical left critique of globalization lose its appeal for the working class and huge chunks of youth, but anti-globalism emerged as a major ideological tenet of the extreme right.
However, the backlash against globalism by hard-right and far-right parties was not based on a scathing critique of neoliberal capitalism but was seen instead as a political project advanced by Marxism and the radical left with the double aim of destroying national culture and replacing the nation-state with institutions of global governance. This is of course an evasion of what capitalist globalization is all about, but it would be naïve to think that the backlash against globalism by the far-right does not have socioeconomic roots. The anti-globalist sentiment that brought President Donald Trump to power in the United States and scores of other authoritarian political figures across the world is driven by both cultural and socioeconomic factors and is nurtured by the “us versus them” mentality. The far-right of course is not anti-systemic and in fact enjoys the support of digital moguls like Elon Musk. As such, it is fooling voters on the economy with promises of a new order. The far-right’s anti-globalism stance begins and ends with the imposition of draconian measures against immigration and the creation of a culture of cruelty.
The anti-globalism of the far-right is perverse and irrational, and thus it may speak volumes of the need of a widely and publicly educated citizenry to sustain democracy, but it also calls attention to the gross political failures of the reformist left parties that came to power during the height of the anti-globalization period. Indeed, while the contradictions of neoliberal globalization led to electoral victories of left parties in scores of countries across the world during the last couple of decades, the shift to global neoliberalism was not countered by the parties of the reformist left that came to power. They may have criticized neoliberal hyper-globalization while they were in opposition, but they did very little once they came to power to combat its destructive effects. At the very best, they increased spending on social programs but did not try to diminish the spread of globalization on their economies and societies. Subsequently, by failing to tame, let alone shrink, capitalist globalization, they quickly saw their political fortunes decline and found citizens changing sides. This is the principal factor that has activated a turn to the far-right across the globe, including the United States, although Trumpism also needs to be considered in light of the peculiar social, cultural, and ideological features of the country.
The problem with the reformist left vis-à-vis neoliberal globalization remains. That is, it advances a critique of the consequences of capitalist globalization but seems to accept the phenomenon as inevitable and unalterable. In doing so, it leaves the field open for far-right populists to make inroads with disgruntled voters by appealing to their worst instincts as in the case of immigration.
We also know that pressure “from below” to tame or even reverse neoliberal globalization, a view that was held by the main body of the anti-globalization movement of the 1990s and 2000s, is a flawed strategy. The way out of neoliberal globalization is by developing a new globalization that is free from the destructive tendencies of capitalist accumulation and operates through political processes in which democracy and globalization are in a symbiotic relationship and thus support and reinforce each other.
The left is historically obligated to advance an alternative vision of a world order beyond capitalism. A world order where the rights of labor are at the pinnacle of human society and thus the means of production are collectively owned by workers while the exploitation of nature is seen as injustice.
In sum, systemic change for ending neoliberal hyper-globalization is a prerequisite but such a project mandates anti-systemic consciousness and a comprehensive political program for a new world order. If the left fails to develop the courage to engage itself economically, politically, ideologically, and culturally in the making of an alternative world order, capitalist globalization will continue to reign supreme, and the far-right will be its main political beneficiary.