

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.
US President Donald Trump on Monday invoked an arcane legal provision to impose 50% tariffs on most imported goods from Canada, a move that critics said will hit US consumers already reeling from an unabated cost-of-living crisis and further strain relations with the nation's second-largest trade partner.
Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, an unprecedented move the White House said is aimed at "offsetting the burden and disadvantage on US commerce from Canada’s discriminatory treatment of US commerce" and "leveling the playing field for crucial American exports—cars, alcohol, and dairy."
The new tariffs exempt energy products, potash, fish, and critical minerals.
“While the administration continues to secure fair and reciprocal trade deals with our trading partners, Canada, unlike other partners and allies, continues to retaliate against the United States for its efforts to rebalance trade and protect US industry in national security-sensitive sectors,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement.
“Specifically, Canada has taken US alcohol products off Canadian shelves, given better market access to dairy products from the European Union, and has put a cap on US vehicle exports to Canada from companies reshoring to the United States," Greer added. "Today, President Trump took decisive action to hold Canada accountable for its retaliation and discrimination, delivering on his promise to correct trade imbalances and ensure fairness for American workers, farmers, and businesses.”
While the administration's official communications cite economic reasons for the new tariffs, Trump in recent days has repeatedly cited the Canadian wildfires as justification for the move.
“I told them. I mean, you got to stop these fires from coming in, and you know poisoning our air," Trump said of Canada on Sunday evening. "Our air has been poisoned. Maybe they should pay us some damages or something, or we should do some tariffs."
The president's linkage of the wildfires and tariffs drew widespread ridicule, with Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul posting on X, "Only Donald Trump could see wildfire smoke and decide the answer is more tariffs."
Pod Save America co-host Dan Pfeiffer said on social media, "Americans have to pay high prices because Trump doesn’t understand how wind works."
According to We Pay the Tariffs, a small business coalition, Trump’s capricious tariffs have cost American businesses and consumers upward of $317 billion since March 2025.
That month, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on many Canadian goods and 10% on Canadian energy products. The administration later modified or paused some of those tariffs.
Ottawa has criticized the tariffs and rejected the US justification that Canada is unfairly restricting American products.
"I’ll never stop fighting to protect Ontario," Doug Ford, the province's right-wing premier, said in response to Trump's move. "If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar."
Some Democratic US lawmakers blasted the new tariffs.
"Trump is raising prices on Americans, again, by jacking up tariffs by 50% on Canadian goods bought by Americans," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on social media. "Democrats will flip the House. And on day one of next term, Democrats will introduce legislation to repeal Trump’s disastrous tariffs. And we will pass it."
New York City's mayor reiterated Monday that his administration will "follow all applicable local laws" as he considers legal options to take against the fugitive Israeli prime minister.
US President Donald Trump declared Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—will be safe from arrest in the United States after New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said he was exploring whether he could apprehend the fugitive during his planned visit to the United Nations in September.
"Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America," Trump said on his Truth Social network.
"He is fighting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which recently killed 52,000 innocent protestors, and has spent the last 47 years killing American Soldiers, and others," the president continued, citing a protest death claim made by opponents of the Iranian government, which said that 3,117 people were killed.
"The only ones that should be arrested," Trump added, "are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, something that should have been dealt with years ago, by previous Presidents!"
The US and Israel are currently waging an illegal war of choice against Iran.
Trump's post followed weekend remarks by Mamdani, who told The New York Times that Netanyahu "belongs in The Hague," the Dutch city that's home to both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice, where a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa in 2023 is pending.
“He’s a war criminal who has been charged by the International Criminal Court,” the mayor said. “I will follow the laws that we have here in New York City because I believe that there is an importance in following the law as a leader who presides over our city.”
"Whatever the law allows me to do in New York City, that’s what we will do, but we won’t be writing our own laws to that end," he added.
Mamdani was asked about his remarks during a Monday press conference.
"We're speaking about someone who's the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant," he said of Netanyahu. "And he's the subject of this arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity, for war crimes, and he's the architect of the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza as Israel's prime minister. These are not facts of my personal assessment; they are facts of public record."
"And I believe that when someone is charged with an International Criminal Court warrant, it's something that should be taken seriously, whether it's Benjamin Netanyahu or it's [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, or whomever else," Mamdani added. "What I've also made clear is that my administration will follow all applicable local laws. That is our commitment."
🚨Mamdani on why he ordered review re: Netanyahu arrest:
“He's the architect of the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza as Israel's prime minister...
“If someone is charged with a warrant for by the International Criminal Court for these kinds of crimes, that's something I… https://t.co/6OfJPRJQ4u pic.twitter.com/Wee0mbID9S
— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) July 20, 2026
Although neither the US nor Israel is an ICC member, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, the treaty governing the tribunal, Articles 12 and 13 of the document say that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
Article 27 of the Rome Statute also says that serving as a head of state or government, or as any elected official, "shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility" before the court.
However, Article 98 of the treaty may limit governments' obligation to execute an ICC arrest warrant in certain circumstances involving officials of nonparty states.
Netanyanu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are accused of murder and forced starvation in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, the deadliest in that country's history.
Israeli forces have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, over 21,500 of them children, in Gaza since October 2023, while wounding over 173,500 others, according to Palestinian officials. More than 2 million other Gazans have been forcibly displaced—often multiple times—starved, or sickened by the US-backed war, which UN and other experts say is a genocide.
While numerous Global South nations—particularly members of the Hague Group—and US allies including Belgium, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Spain have publicly said they would enforce the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, other nations including France and Hungary have said they would not try to arrest the Israelis if they entered their territory.
Critics panned the publication for not only its warmongering but also "unfounded claims seeking to tar domestic movements for social change as agents of a foreign government."
While some Republicans in Congress cheered the US Department of State's Monday report titled "Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism," American and Cuban critics blasted it as part of both President Donald Trump's push to invade the island and his authoritarian crackdown on domestic dissent.
"For nearly seven decades, the Cuban regime has waged a sustained campaign of subversion against the United States," the report begins, "that has infiltrated the highest reaches of the US government, recruited and cultivated generations of American activists, backed an unprecedented wave of left-wing terrorism on American soil, and carried out one of the most durable and damaging foreign intelligence penetrations in American history."
Sharing the document on social media, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants and a longtime advocate of regime change on the island—similarly claimed that Cuba's government "has been the leading sponsor of radical leftism and Third Worldism in the United States. The State Department is exposing the full history of Cuban espionage and subversion in our country. The American people deserve to know."
Some of the critics responded directly to Rubio, calling the report "justification for the military invasion of Cuba and the new COINTELPRO," a reference to the Federal Bureau of Investigation program targeting US organizers over half a century ago.
Defense Priorities fellow and Chicago Tribune foreign affairs columnist Daniel DePetris wrote: "This report actually states, in all seriousness, that Cuba's main goal is to conquer the United States. It's about as dumb as dumb gets. Don't be fooled: This is the State Department trying to build the foundational case for US military action, should Trump decide to do it."
Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at King's College London and fellow at the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, urged Rubio, "Before building another casus belli for Cuba, try to solve the strategic disaster that is the Iran War you started but cannot win."
Trump in recent months has ramped up the United States' decadeslong and deadly economic assault on Cuba and suggested that he may try to take over the island. However, he's also signaled such action may come only after an end to his illegal war on Iran, which has been revived in recent days following a failed ceasefire.
In an apparent show of support for Trump taking military action against the island nation, Congressman Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) declared on social media Monday, "Cuba is next!"
Meanwhile, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla said in Spanish that "the latest fallacy from the US Department of State against Cuba forms part of the construction, by the secretary of state, of a pretext for sustaining its cruel and criminal economic war that punishes every Cuban family, and its aspiration to militarily aggress Cuba, for which it desperately seeks the support of US citizens. It is further evidence of the macabre plan designed by that US politician from South Florida, who only satisfies the interests of those who have always paid him."
US Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who recently traveled to Cuba to hear firsthand accounts of the humanitarian crisis, said that "Secretary Rubio's deranged 'analysis' leaves out the fact that for more than six decades, the United States' policies have destabilized our neighbors in Latin America—including Cuba—through sanctions, embargoes, military coups, land control, and colonization."
"Today, the Trump Department of State, led by Rubio, continues that imperialist tradition while doing what authoritarians do by criminalizing dissent," she continued. "US foreign policy is responsible for death, destruction, and destabilization. We can change that. We CAN become good neighbors."
About halfway through the State Department report, it complains about a "constant stream of Western left-wing activists, influencers, and organizers" participating in "solidarity delegations" as well as events such as the March 2026 "Nuestra América Convoy," which delivered humanitarian aid to everyday Cubans suffering due to the Trump administration's intensified blockade.
"Participants included a suite of influential progressives from the United States and across the world, including Hasan Piker; Amazon Labor Union founder Christian Smalls; a delegation from the Democratic Socialists of America; former UK Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn; former Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Pablo Iglesias; several other current and former members of European Parliament; and Isra Hirsi, campus activist and daughter of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)," the report states. Elsewhere, it takes aim at groups including the peace organization CodePink, Communist Party USA, the National Lawyers Guild, and others.
Some targeted individuals and groups responded to what CodePink called a "conspiracy theory that masquerades as a report on Cuba," full of "baseless smears and imaginary, contrived links to Russia, China, and Iran."
"The report attempts to paint the tiny island as a threat but says nothing about the US blockade that starves and punishes 10 million people," CodePink said. "This latest attempt by the State Department is just one of many politically motivated witch hunts designed to silence anti-war voices who dare to challenge US militarism. It's about justifying even more aggression against Cuba while turning advocates for peace into suspects. We've seen this playbook before. It's McCarthyism, plain and simple."
"CodePink is currently under investigation by the Treasury Department simply for bringing medical supplies to serve children's hospitals in Cuba. We live in a world where, sadly, the people delivering medicine—not those who are enforcing the policies that deprive Cubans of medicine, food, fuel, and electricity—are under investigation," the group noted.
The organization also nodded to the dozens of United Nations General Assembly votes against the decades of American sanctions, saying that "we stand proudly with the global majority, including 187 UN member nations, who oppose the inhumane US blockade of Cuba. We will not be intimidated for delivering humanitarian aid and advocating for diplomacy over war."
"End the blockade. End the sanctions. End the economic warfare. End the threats of military intervention," CodePink declared. "Let Cubans determine their own future. Hands off Cuba."
Although not mentioned in the administration's new document, Defending Rights & Dissent joined the organizations publicly lambasting it, with policy director Chip Gibbons saying that his group "objects to the State Department's McCarthyite report on Cuba, which makes unfounded claims seeking to tar domestic movements for social change as agents of a foreign government."
Throughout its 100 pages, the publication "goes so far as to cite reports from the long-discredited House Un-American Activities Committee, in order to revive absurd Cold War conspiracy theories and update them for the present," noted Gibbons the author of The Imperial Bureau: The FBI, Political Surveillance, and the Rise of the US National Security State.
"The report smears activists, organizations, and even elected officials using guilt-by-association techniques. It appears designed to justify both domestic political repression and regime change in Cuba," he added. "Congress must not only condemn the report but hold hearings examining its authorship and to determine if the claims behind it have been used to facilitate the surveillance of American activists."
This article has been updated with comment from Congresswoman Delia Ramirez.
"Every American who values a free and independent press should see this for what it is: an abuse of power designed to silence scrutiny."
Attorneys representing The New York Times have revealed that the Trump administration's subpoenas of the newspaper's journalists are far more aggressive than what had been previously reported.
In a letter sent to US District Judge Arun Subramanian on Saturday and unsealed by the court on Monday, attorneys David O'Neil, Douglas Zolkind, and Julie Edelstein said that the US Department of Justice was engaged in an "alarming pattern of conduct" beyond its recently revealed efforts to compel Times reporters to testify before a grand jury for a probe related to unspecified national security leaks.
The attorneys said the administration had gone so far as to subpoena phone companies for subscriber information and toll records for phone numbers used by one reporter's mother and by two reporters' spouses, among others.
They also revealed that two administration subpoenas seek records going back as far as January 1 this year, "long before the events that are purportedly the basis for the department's investigation," suggesting that "the department is using this investigation... to forage for information about the journalists' source relationships more broadly."
The subpoenas of the Times journalists, issued earlier this month, came days after the paper published a story that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
The issued subpoenas did not specifically name the Times’ reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, described news of the department seeking phone records of reporters' spouses and a parent as "an extraordinary escalation in the Trump administration’s campaign to intimidate the press."
"The Justice Department didn't stop at journalists—it went after their family members, too," Fallow noted. "That sends an unmistakably chilling message to anyone thinking about reporting on this administration. Every American who values a free and independent press should see this for what it is: an abuse of power designed to silence scrutiny."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, was even more scathing in his denunciation of the administration's actions.
"Even the Mafia says families are off limits," said Stern. "It’s gross that the administration—in its never-ending effort to harass and intimidate reporters who reveal its incompetence—is going after the communications of journalists’ relatives."
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life."
As the US ramps up its assault against Iran with daily bombings and threatens a full ground invasion, hundreds of public figures from across Iranian civil society issued an urgent call for peace on Sunday.
Two hundred sixty-eight prominent Iranians—including political activists, academics, former members of Parliament, religious figures, labor leaders, and others—signed a joint declaration calling for a "complete and unconditional end of war, and the cessation of all threats, incitement to hatred, and warmongering."
"We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people desire peace and the right to live a dignified life," the statement says. "Therefore, since no decision should be imposed upon the country against the will of its people... we firmly remind all governments, military forces involved in the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and all members of the international community that violating this fundamental right of the Iranian people is a grave injustice against a nation that does not want war and stands for peace."
"Despite all our differences, we raise our collective voice to say 'No to War,'" the letter continued. "We sincerely call upon all our fellow Iranians—regardless of gender, political or ideological beliefs, religion, ethnicity, or any other distinction—to join this call and strengthen its echo by adding their voices."
The declaration ends with a quote from the 13th-century Persian poet Saadi Shirazi: "Even if you possess the strength of an elephant or the claws of a lion, to me, peace is still better than war."
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) emphasized the "breadth of the signatories," which span large swaths of political opinion and reflect "a rare convergence across Iran’s deeply fragmented political landscape."
Among the signatories are Kak Hassan Amini, a Sunni activist; Faezeh Hashemi, a former member of Iran's Parliament and the daughter of former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; teachers' labor rights activist Maryam Kabiri; former Parliament members Elaheh Koulaei and Parvaneh Salahshouri; and former Central Bank Gov. Valiollah Seif.
The letter comes as the US has conducted nine consecutive nights of bombings following a short-lived truce in June. Earlier strikes targeted areas around the Strait of Hormuz—which Iran again sealed off as June's memorandum of understanding collapsed.
In recent days, US strikes have begun to creep inland. In addition to military infrastructure, the US has attacked facilities relied upon by civilians, including bridges, roads, a train station, an airport, and energy infrastructure.
In retaliation for strikes that killed two US service members in Jordan over the weekend, the US launched another round of strikes on Monday that struck the construction site of a planned nuclear power plant, according to Iran's atomic energy agency.
Iranian authorities have said that at least 50 people have been killed and at least 517 wounded in the latest round of US strikes. At least 3,500 Iranians have been killed since the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February, including more than 1,700 confirmed civilians, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).
At least 17 US troops have been killed since the war began, with Iran's strikes in Jordan killing 25-year-old 1st Lt. James Feehan and 19-year-old Pvt. Isabella Gonzales over the weekend. Another soldier has also gone missing and has not yet been publicly identified.
President Donald Trump vowed in a social media post on Monday that "every time Iran kills an American Soldier” going forward “they will pay for that killing many times over.”
With Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz once again causing global oil prices to soar, the Trump administration is reportedly mulling a full-scale ground invasion of Kharg Island and areas of coastline near the strait, which experts have warned would require hundreds of thousands of American troops and likely lead to many more casualties.
Democrats in Congress responded to the deaths of two more US soldiers by renewing calls to end the conflict.
"These brave troops gave their lives in service to our nation," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "How many more must die for Trump’s war of choice?"
Trump's escalations come despite the US House of Representatives and Senate passing a war powers resolution last month that directed him to withdraw troops from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes them.
"History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
The $110 billion megamerger between Paramount and Warner Bros., widely criticized as a "disaster" by antitrust advocates, has been temporarily put on hold.
US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín on Monday granted a temporary restraining order sought by several Democratic state attorneys general to pause the merger from going forward.
In her ruling, Martínez-Olguín found that the plaintiffs provided "compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market," meaning that the merger between the two studios is "likely to violate antitrust laws."
The judge—appointed by former President Joe Biden—issued a 14-day restraining order on the merger, writing that "Paramount and Warner Bros. will continue to operate as separate, viable companies competing in the marketplace while they wait for the court to adjudicate this case."
The combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. has long been controversial because it would put control of CBS, CNN, HBO, TikTok, and other major media properties all under the control of David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Paramount-Warner Bros. deal, hailed Martínez-Olguín's ruling as a "critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day."
"History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," he said. "With our lawsuit, we're fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, delivered a video statement calling the ruling "an important victory for consumers, for workers, and for fair competition."
"We are taking action to protect New Yorkers from the harms of unlawful corporate consolidation," James added, "and protecting democracy while we're at it."
We just won a court order stopping the merger of @ParamountPics and @warnerbros while our lawsuit continues.
We’re going to keep fighting to keep costs down for consumers, protect jobs, and stop this illegal merger. pic.twitter.com/yfcA0sOoLb
— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) July 20, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a longtime critic of the merger, called the ruling "a WIN thanks to the state attorneys general who stood up and pushed back," and added, "Let's keep up the fight."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said the ruling was "welcome news," while warning that "we're not out of the woods yet."
"This merger would force prices up, bring wages down, and lead to people losing jobs—all to bring TikTok, CNN, and CBS under one roof," Balint observed. "Perhaps Paramount CEO David Ellison can't wine and dine his way through this one after all."
Attorney Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Action, accused the Ellisons of trying to "rush" the merger over the finish line before courts could examine antitrust claims being made against it.
"Now the case gets decided on the merits," Eisen said.
President Donald J. Trump’s “sole authority” to launch the US nuclear arsenal, which could kill billions of people and destroy life on Earth as we know it, means that he is the most powerful man ever; this should be of profound concern.
As William Perry, former secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, and Tom Collina state in The Button: “Within minutes, with just one phone call, President Trump could unleash up to a thousand nuclear weapons, each one many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. It would be the end of civilization... For President Trump, starting nuclear war is about as easy as sending a tweet.”
US policy, which invests “sole authority” in the president to launch nuclear weapons, crystallizes the utter absurdity of the nuclear predicament that we have lived under for 81 years. Contrary to popular belief, there is no “button.” Instead, there is a military aide, who carries a 40-plus pound briefcase, referred to as the “nuclear football” (officially called the Presidential Emergency Satchel), which follows the president 24/7/365, whenever he is away from fixed command centers. The fact that the president can use the football to launch US nuclear weapons at any moment, day or night—without having to consult or listen to anyone—beggars belief. Clearly, the ability to start a nuclear war that could destroy most life on Earth should not be entrusted to one person, especially one known to be erratically capriciousness and highly unstable.
Inside the nuclear football is a secure communications device that allows the president to order a launch, as well as a “Black Book,” outlining pre-planned presidential options for targets, delivery systems, and estimated casualties. It originally contained a heavy set of war plans, but after Jimmy Carter complained that it was too complicated for the extremely short time frame, it was simplified into a menu of strike options for either limited strikes or full retaliation, presented as a “one-page, cartoon-like menu.” One of Clinton’s aides quipped that it was like a “Denny’s breakfast menu.”
There is also a small laminated card, called the “biscuit,” with unique codes which are used to establish the president’s identity. If the president were to decide on a nuclear launch, he would read the codes over secure communications to the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon or one of its alternates. Once authenticated, the president's will is converted into a “highly encrypted, time-sensitive message called the Emergency Action Message, which includes the authentication codes, the strike option, timing details, and the codes to unlock the weapons.” It is then transmitted by the US Strategic Command Headquarters located in a bunker under the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, again by secure communication, to land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launch control centers, ballistic missile submarines, and air force strategic bombers, each with their own authentication and launch procedures. A full nuclear launch order can be executed in 5-15 minutes.
The only way to truly overcome the total absurdity of the incredibly reckless situation that we have created for ourselves during the nuclear age is to recognize the danger and to collectively “get our act together” to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Presidents often keep the biscuit in a pocket, which has presented problems: Carter inadvertently sent his to the dry cleaners in a suit pocket; Clinton lost it altogether for several months. When Ronald Reagan was taken to hospital after an assassination attempt, he was stripped of clothing and the biscuit was later found by the FBI in a hospital trash can.
Once the nuclear football is opened, the president would have less than 10 minutes to absorb the information inside, review the options, and make a decision. Other sources suggest it would be six minutes. As Reagan lamented: “Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope and decide whether to unleash Armageddon? How could anyone apply reason at a time like that?”
Indeed, there have been concerns about several presidents during the nuclear age: John F. Kennedy was on heavy pain medication for back pain; Richard Nixon was drinking too much due to the strain of the Watergate investigations. (At one point, he threatened, “I can go back in my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes, 70 million people will be dead.”) Lyndon B. Johnson alternated between manic energy and bouts of gloominess. At the end of their terms, Reagan had early-stage Alzheimer’s and Joe Biden’s clarity of thinking has also been questioned. But of all the 14 presidents who have been in office in the nuclear age, Trump’s stability has been the most extensively questioned. As reported by The New York Times, “Never before in modern times has the stability of a president been so publicly and forensically debated—and with such profound consequences.”
Most presidents had previous experience with nuclear issues: 9 of 14 had military experience before taking office; five served as vice president; several served in other parts of the executive branch; and more than half, in Congress. Trump had none of this prior experience.
When Trump took charge of the nuclear football for a second time in 2025, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who had previously introduced legislation to Congress against “sole authority,” stated:
As Donald Trump returns to the White House, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress’ constitutional role is respected and fulfilled. We must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war. We must never again entrust the fate of the world to just one fallible human.
Upon receiving a nuclear briefing just before their inauguration, presidents are often horrified by the awesome responsibility. Dwight D. Eisenhower was “visibly shaken”; Kennedy asked, “And we call ourselves the human race?” Carter recounted that, as president, the horror “was constantly on my mind.” George H.W. Bush stated, “I had no idea we had so many weapons... What do we need them for?” Barack Obama told a close adviser, it was “one of the most sobering experiences of my life.” Trump said, “a very sobering moment... very, very scary.” But as Perry and Collina comment, “While that statement might sound reassuring, Trump also asked, on several occasions [during his first term] ‘If we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we use them?’”
Indeed, during both terms, Trump has occasionally appeared to threaten their use. In 2017, when he and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, were in a tense standoff, Trump said: “North Korea, best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” When Kim boasted that his nuclear button is “always on my table,” Trump tweeted in return, “Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is much bigger & more powerful than his, and my Button works!”
During the current ongoing war with Iran, Trump has also made a number of extremely ominous threats, the worst of which was probably on April 7 when he posted on Truth Social: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
Following this post, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to the White House physician on April 10, citing the above comments and requesting an evaluation of Trump due to “signs consistent with dementia and cognitive decline” and “increasingly incoherent, volatile, profane, deranged, and threatening tantrums.” No answer was received.
On April 14, Raskin submitted legislation to Congress to establish a nonpartisan “Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office.” Such a mechanism is allowed by the 25th Amendment as an alternative to the vice president and Cabinet deciding whether the president should be removed from office (which is currently unlikely since Trump’s Cabinet members were selected because of their extreme loyalty). The legislation is still in committee.
On June 18, Raskin again wrote to the White House physician demanding that he comply with his previous request; provide a complete list of all medications and dosages; identify each of the 22 medical providers and their specialty that Trump saw during his May 26 examination at Walter Reed; and publicly release the complete results of this visit—again, without response.
Although the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater Rule” forbids psychiatrists from offering public opinions about the diagnosis and mental health status of public figures they have not examined, many have argued that the rule is poorly conceived and that there is an overriding “duty to warn.” In this spirit, a group of 36 senior neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, general psychiatrists, and mental health professionals experienced in the diagnosis of cognitive disorders and evaluation of dangerousness, who had signed an earlier statement in 2024, issued an update on April 30 of this year.
They cited examples of Trump’s “marked deterioration in cognitive functioning, evidenced by disorganized and tangential speech, rambling digressions, factual confusions, unexplained sudden changes of course in strategic matters, both national and international, episodes of apparent somnolence during crucial public proceeding. Grandiose and delusional beliefs, including assertions of infallibility... claims that his decision-making authority is unlimited—with no need to consider domestic and international laws and constrained only by his ‘own morality.’ Severely impaired judgment and impulse control... Significant loss of self-control (disinhibition) and getting stuck on the same thoughts or actions, unable to let go or move on (perseveration), including seemingly compulsive, manic-like late-night communications—e.g., 150 social media posts in one night.”
They conclude:
It is our professional opinion that the behaviors of Donald Trump, tragically, are neither momentary lapses nor political theater. It is our professional opinion that they reflect a rapidly worsening, reality-untethered, increasingly dangerous decline... For the reasons cited above, emphasizing that he presents a clear and present danger to our country and to the world, it is our expert opinion that Donald J. Trump is mentally unfit to be the president of the United States, and that steps to remove him from office must be undertaken with the greatest urgency.
On six occasions since 2016, Markey and Lieu have introduced legislation entitled the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, which would reallocate the responsibility for launching nuclear weapons from the president to Congress when the US is not being attacked. It would require Congress to explicitly approve any first nuclear strike by the US before federal money could be spent on the attack. So far it has not been adopted.
If the Democratic Party wins a majority in the next Congress, the Markey and Lieu bill or Raskin’s bill could be passed. If the latter is adopted, the use of Article 25 might become politically possible. Alternatively, it is also remotely conceivable that Trump could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. But the concern remains as to whether this is soon enough to spare the world the possible use of Trump’s “sole authority”—given his deteriorating cognitive abilities.
Of course, the only way to truly overcome the total absurdity of the incredibly reckless situation that we have created for ourselves during the nuclear age is to recognize the danger and to collectively “get our act together” to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
As Jonathan Schell sums up in The Fate of the Earth: “The machinery of destruction is complete, poised on a hair trigger, waiting for the ‘button’ to be ‘pushed’ by some misguided or deranged human being or for some faulty computer chip to send out the instruction to fire. That so much should be balanced on so fine a point—that the fruit of four and a half billion years can be undone in a careless moment—is a fact against which belief rebels.”
“It’s just shocking to see that the people we elected have turned a blind eye to youth dying," said one protester.
Indian protesters rallying Monday in New Delhi under the banner of the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party were brutally attacked by police as they marched toward the country's Parliament demanding the resignation of the country's education minister and denouncing the right-wing government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of the Indian capital despite police bans, barricades, internet shutdowns, and a heavy security presence. Police, some of them in plain clothes, attacked the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrators with baton charges and tear gas. Delhi police are controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled central government.
The Wire reported that thousands of people were injured—some seriously—by police. Despite video footage and photos showing officer brutality, Delhi Police denied "sporadic use of violence" against protesters.
The protesters are seeking the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following repeated leaks of National Eligibility Entrance Test papers that have upended the lives of millions of students by forcing them to retake the grueling exams and delaying university admissions. Protest organizers say more than 20 students have killed themselves over the matter.
Late last month, Pradhan dismissed the protesters as "the B-team of terrorists."
“Already more than 20 students have died by suicide, but this government is not done yet," Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke said on social media. "This government has resorted to hooliganism now.”
Protester Rhythm Katoch told The Guardian on Monday: “They are calling this protest illegal, they are calling us anti-national. But I am 22 years old, and I am standing here to fight for our education system, for the rights of the young people, and for our democracy. Is it too much to ask for the government to listen to us?”
The CJP and other student groups have been leading hunger strikes at the Jantar Mantar, an 18th-century astronomical observatory designated as the protest site. Three students from the leftist All India Students' Association ended their fast on Monday, while environmentalist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on a hunger strike since June 28, was taken by authorities on Saturday to Safdarjung Hospital, where he continues his fast.
“I am touched and moved by how the youth have held on to peace despite provocation,” Wangchuk said Monday.
The movement began in May after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reportedly compared unemployed young people to “cockroaches." The protesters satirically reclaimed the slur as the symbol of a movement that has grown into a broader challenge to Modi's increasingly authoritarian Hindu nationalist rule, which has seen mounting repression of protest and dissent, including restrictions on journalists and activists, and the use of legal measures to target critics.
On Monday, protesters chanted “Go, Pradhan, Go, Saat Mein Modi Ko Bhi Lo! (Take Modi along with you too!),” banging plastic bottles on the ground to keep the beat.
“It’s just shocking to see that the people we elected have turned a blind eye to youth dying… because of their incompetency,” Sajal, a 22-year-old law student, told The Straits Times.
Another protester, yoga instructor Jyoti Rajput, told The Associated Press that she joined the demonstration because “this rotten system refuses to take action.”
“It cannot see the pain of students, and that’s why so many people have joined this movement,” she added.
Amid Monday's demonstration, CJP leaders met Union Minister JP Nadda at his Delhi home.
"The minister assured us he will discuss this at the appropriate level,” CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said on social media. “However, no commitments have been made so far.”
Responding to the brutal crackdown, Amnesty International India board chair Aakar Patel said in a statement that “the images and reports emerging from the protest at Jantar Mantar show how peaceful dissent is being suppressed in India."
“The role of the authorities is to protect and facilitate peaceful protests, not to suppress them," he continued. "The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is recognized under international human rights law and the Indian Constitution."
"The Delhi Police’s actions raise serious questions about whether their response met the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality under international human rights standards," Patel added. "We call on the Delhi Police to exercise restraint and immediately cease the use of unlawful force against peaceful protesters. Authorities must ensure that all allegations of unlawful conduct, including the reported excessive use of batons, tear gas, and stone-throwing by police personnel, are promptly, independently, and impartially investigated.”
"In Congress, Donavan will fight for strong union jobs, environmental justice, and for universal childcare."
As Democratic Michigan Congressman Shri Thanedar on Monday announced endorsements from party leaders in the US House of Representatives, his primary challenger, Donavan McKinney, secured more support from key progressives.
Already, McKinney counted among his backers various Michiganders, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and progressive congressional candidates who have recently won their primaries: Dr. Adam Hamawy in New Jersey, Melat Kiros in Colorado, and Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania.
On Monday, just over two weeks away from the August 4 primary, Congresswoman Summer Lee (D-Pa.) and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) also backed the lifelong Detroiter's bid to oust Thanedar in Michigan's 13th Congressional District.
"Donavan McKinney is the fighter his community needs: principled, hardworking, and unafraid to speak truth to power," Lee said in a statement. "I'm proud to support his people-powered campaign, and proud to endorse him for Congress in MI-13. Detroit deserves real representation, and I know Donavan McKinney will deliver it."
McKinney welcomed her support on social media, writing that "I am honored to receive the endorsement of my sister in service, Rep. Summer Lee. Our shared commitment to standing up for our communities unites us deeply, and I am thrilled to have a fighter like Summer join our people-powered coalition."
In a Monday social media post promoted by Kiros and Rabb, DSA said that "Donavan knows what it takes to fight, and win. Now he's ready to take that fight to DC. In Congress, Donavan will fight for strong union jobs, environmental justice, and for universal childcare."
"The Motor City is ready to put working people in the driver’s seat. Let’s get Donavan across the finish line and grow our socialist bloc in Congress," the organization added.
The fresh endorsements followed a weekend rally in Detroit, where McKinney appeared with Sanders, Tlaib, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain, and Dr. Abdul El-Sayed—a progressive US Senate candidate who notably secured support from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Monday.
While El-Sayed and Congresswoman Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) battle over the seat currently held by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, McKinney is aiming to oust Thanedar, "a pharmaceutical entrepreneur who has spent millions of dollars from his personal fortune on several campaigns," as the Detroit Metro Times reported Monday. He "was first elected to Congress in 2022 after winning a nine-candidate primary with 28% of the vote. His victory left Detroit without a Black member of Congress for the first time in nearly seven decades."
After journalists noted in recent days that Thanedar "lost more than $630,000 in investment income last quarter after he put $3.7 million in campaign funds into the cryptocurrency industry," and just loaned his campaign another $650,000, Ravi Mangla, national press secretary for the Working Families Party, declared Monday that the incumbent "is panicked."
"He's emptying out his bank account and begging his AIPAC and crypto buddies to bail him out," Mangla said, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—which is also backing Stevens in the state's Senate fight. "Detroiters deserve better than an out-of-touch politician who's willing to sell them out to the highest bidder."
In a clear signal of where Democratic Party leadership stands as they try to reclaim both chambers of Congress from Republicans in the November midterms, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY), Whip Katherine Clark (Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Calif.) on Monday issued a joint statement supporting Thanedar. They said that he "has always shown up for his constituents and is fighting every day to lower the cost of housing and groceries, and to make life more affordable for everyday Michiganders."
Responding on social media, Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim said: "I understand that Dem leaders always endorse incumbents, but this one is particularly absurd. Shri is basically a con man who spent his way into Congress. But his opponent Donovan McKinney has Bernie's backing, so the con man will have to do."
The 2026 World Cup was a lesson in how authoritarians capture what we love and how we refuse to let them.
I inherited a few things from my father, who, as the story goes, when I was a baby in Transylvania, swam across a frozen river to escape communist Romania, toward a faith that we could forge our own brave futures, free from ethnic oppression. I inherited his unruly curls, refusing control and predictability. I inherited his sometimes comic rage at injustice. I inherited his love of the beautiful game, its history, its ever-evolving, complex entanglements with state and power. His faith that people who have little can stand proudly against nations who have stolen their wealth, and refuse to back down.
He is no longer here for me to talk to about the World Cup. And this impossible and forever grief has been opened fresh as I try to imagine what he would say about what we have watched unfold in the 2026 games. There is a chip inside the ball now. It hums at 500 times a second, registering contacts no eye can see, no crowd can feel, no player can dispute. It enters the conversation as an indisputable, objective data point, asserting authority over anyone and everyone. On the third of July, in Toronto, that sensor ended Croatia's World Cup. Joško Gvardiol had bundled home what looked like an equalizer 13 minutes into stoppage time, and for a few delirious seconds the stadium believed. Then according to officials the sensor detected the smallest brush of a teammate's hair against the ball, on its way to the man who set up the goal. FIFA officials decided it was enough to call it offside. The goal was erased. Portugal advanced, 2-1. A machine had registered what no human present could, and in registering it, unmade a moment of collective joy.
FIFA insists the call was correct. Perhaps it was. I can’t say, the beautiful game is rife with instances when fans felt distraught by calls refs have made. But I can say that this is different. We have built a tournament where correctness is now adjudicated by inertial sensors and video rooms and it lies beyond dispute. Eduardo Galeano, the great Uruguayan chronicler of the game, warned us. "The more the technocrats program it down to the smallest detail," he wrote, "the more the powerful manipulate it, football continues to be the art of the unforeseeable." The chip in the ball is the technocrat's dream: a game with the unforeseeable engineered out. It is not just that the game has been made less human under the guise of objectivity. It is that the fantasy of objectivity itself has become the cudgel.
Here is what I am reflecting on, wishing I could discuss with my dad, at the close of this tournament: The promise of VAR was never really neutrality. It was the appearance of neutrality, which is a different and more useful thing if you happen to hold power. The appearance of objectivity is not a side effect of the manipulation; instead, it is the mechanism, because a decision the machine is presumed to have made is a decision no one thinks to question. A goal-line sensor cannot be bribed. But the humans who decide when to consult it, what angle to review, which foul to freeze and which to wave through, can be, and the data increasingly suggests they have been, whether by conscious design or the gravitational pull of a superstar's fame and the money this can make for FIFA.
This World Cup has gifted us many lessons and reminders, one of them is that supposed objectivity is not the same thing as fairness.
Similarly, there are echoes of this pattern in Egypt against Argentina in the round of 16. Egypt led early. Mostafa Ziko put the ball in the net for what would have been a two-goal cushion, and VAR chalked it off for the faintest infraction in the buildup. Late in the match, with Egypt still level, a shove in the box went unpunished by the same system that had been so exacting minutes before. Argentina scored in the 90-second minute and advanced, 3-2. Egypt's football association filed a formal complaint. Their coach made clear the issue when he said his team had suffered an injustice, and suggested that FIFA needed Lionel Messi to keep playing. Analysts who reviewed the tournament's VAR data found that Argentina and Mexico received the most favorable review outcomes of any teams at the tournament, while Croatia and Iran received the least. From this data it appears that a system built to remove human judgment from the game continues to produce outcomes that track, with uncomfortable fidelity, who those in power most need to keep around to increase earnings.
The instances telling this story are culminating into a chorus. In an Iran-Belgium match, a goal was disallowed because VAR determined that an Iranian player's rear end, not his foot, not his knee, but the curve of his backside, had drifted a fraction past the last defender. It was, on its face, absurd, and it was also revealing, because it showed the machine doing exactly what it was built to do: finding a violation so microscopic that no stadium, no broadcast, no human referee running at full speed could ever have called it in real time, and then presenting that finding as more true, more final, than what 40,000 people had just watched with their own eyes. Such instances, of which there are others, are leading fans and experts alike to ask whether VAR had gone too far. In this variation, football survived for 150 years on the premise that referees would sometimes be wrong, and that this was a condition of the game being played by humans, for humans, at human speed. It appears that under the guise of taking away the possibility of human error to allocate the decision to VAR, we are simply relocating the injustice somewhere less visible and giving it a machine's alibi.
This World Cup has gifted us many lessons and reminders, one of them is that supposed objectivity is not the same thing as fairness, and a system that claims the first while abandoning the second is more dangerous than one that never claimed either, because it forecloses the argument. You cannot appeal to a sensor's conscience. What we need, and what this World Cup has made painfully clear we are losing, is the return of human judgment, fallible and accountable and answerable to a crowd, back into the center of the game. And this goes for on the pitch and off the pitch.
If you want to understand who the 2026 World Cup is really for, watch what happens 22 minutes into each half. The rhythm is interrupted, and the play stops. Not because it is dangerously hot, though with climate change it too often is; the breaks run on schedule even in roofed, air-conditioned stadiums. They stop because FIFA decreed a mandatory three-minute "hydration break" in all 104 matches, "regardless of heat conditions." It is the first World Cup in history to do so. Officially, the line is that this is about player welfare, but if we follow the money a different story emerges.
Soccer, alone among the major North American television products, historically offered almost no in-game commercial inventory. Ninety minutes, two halves, no timeouts to sell. The mandatory breaks changed that overnight, manufacturing 208 guaranteed advertising windows across the tournament and restructuring the game into four quarters, conveniently familiar to the American fan and the American businesses FIFA is courting. Media buyers estimate Fox Sports alone stands to reap a minimum of $250 million from these breaks, with plausible figures running to half a billion. Former England defender Gary Neville called it what it is: a "stealth advertising break."
Heat is real, and climate change is making it deadlier. Here, a genuine safety concern has been laundered into a revenue engine, and the game's rhythm, its uninterrupted, breath-held flow, the very thing that distinguishes it, has been sold for the price of a commercial slot. Once you see that the game's own rhythm is for sale, the question is no longer whether other decisions are being bent, only which ones, and in whose favor.
And yet, capitalism did not manage to buy everything. Not everyone in this tournament was for sale, and not everyone who showed up did so for the sponsors.
Algeria, making the trip to the American Midwest, chose the college town of Lawrence, Kansas as their base. And Lawrence welcomed them with open arms. The University of Kansas marching band learned and played the Algerian national anthem. A local artist built a massive Algerian flag out of organic materials. No hydration break manufactured that. It happened because people decided, without being asked and without being paid, to open a door.
That reminder of who we are is also a gift we received from this World Cup alongside everything else this tournament has shown us about who is trying to own the game. There may be polarizing narratives that cultivate a sense of suspicion about people who do not think like us or look like us, but the world is filled with people who look at the visitor and welcome them with a song that reminds them of home.
Oh and perhaps the least surprising of all the events from this World Cup was the phone call. Folarin Balogun, the United States' top scorer, a Black, American-born son of Nigerian immigrants, playing for a nation whose president has spent the year trying to end birthright citizenship, was sent off against Bosnia on a red card, triggering an automatic one-match ban that FIFA had repeatedly described as beyond appeal. Days later, that unappealable ban vanished. FIFA invoked a probationary loophole to suspend the suspension, clearing Balogun to face Belgium in Seattle less than 24 hours after the decision. It was the first time since 1962 that a red card issued at a World Cup did not result in a suspension.
Trump personally called FIFA president Gianni Infantino to ask for a review. He then thanked FIFA publicly for "reversing a great injustice." Belgium's football association said it was "astonished," and UEFA called the reversal "unprecedented, incomprehensible, and unjustifiable." Speaking from the White House, Trump said he hadn't known what a red card was until this happened; once he found out, he said, "You got to be kidding," and picked up the phone.
Trump may think he can do anything in this world, but the consequences are ours to carry and ours to refuse.
Infantino had handed Trump the inaugural "FIFA Peace Prize" the year before, an award invented, it is hard not to conclude, to flatter a notoriously fragile ego. And a supposedly ironclad suspension dissolved within days of a presidential request, reshaping how an opponent could prepare for a knockout match. When the game's governance rearranges itself around a head of state's preference, the fix does not have to be spoken to be real. Of course, this is all according to the script of authoritarian power hoarding that the Trump administration follows.
The United States lost to Belgium, 1-4, eliminated in the Round of 16. Balogun played, amid a firestorm no team should have to carry onto a pitch, and the US was outclassed from the opening minutes to the final whistle. There is a version of this story where I tell you the team was cursed, or simply outmatched, and maybe some of both is true. But it is hard, watching that scoreline, not to think of everything this team had earned up to that point, the grit against Bosnia, the composure that got them here, and everything Trump's intervention cost them in return: a level playing field to lose on, if lose they had to; the dignity of an opponent who did not have cause to call the whole thing rigged before kickoff; a story about their own merit instead of a story about a president's ego.
The team was better than the man who could not let them face Belgium without first bending the rules in their favor. He gave them a phone call. He did not give them a win. That, too, is a lesson: Intervention dressed as favor still costs the person it claims to help. Trump needed his own father to intervene to keep him afloat as a young man, bailing him out with millions he did not earn. He does not seem to understand that a team should not be, and cannot be, rescued into victory. It can only be robbed of the chance to win or lose on its own terms. Trump may think he can do anything in this world, but the consequences are ours to carry and ours to refuse.
Another thing I inherited from my father (who much like Maradona, was also a scoundrel and a genius) is my love of history. And if we look at the history of this sport we find that football never really belonged to the corporate sponsors, the technocrats, and the authoritarian strongmen. It has a dispersed history, thousands of years old; ancestors of the sport were present in pre-Hispanic American culture and in ancient Rome. Before it was standardized into the sport we know today, football was a folk practice, a public riot of a thing in which entire English villages chased a stuffed ball across open country and used the chaos as an occasion for popular justice.
What ended the people's sport was the enclosure of the commons, when the English parliament converted collective fields into private profit and the gentry moved to regulate the festivals of people they had just dispossessed. The standardized game that followed, codified in the elite schools of the 1840s, was explicitly a tool of order: a way to discipline boys and, later, to keep factory workers fit for labor and distracted from dissent. The chip in the ball, the hydration break timed to the ad break, is only the enclosure's newest fence, an attempt to measure and monetize the very unruliness that made the commons worth having in the first place.
And yet. Every attempt to control the game produced its own resistance. Scottish workers, migrating for wages, carried with them a "combination game" of passing and possession, a style rooted in the cooperation and solidarity of the factory floor, set against the individualist "kick and rush" of their bosses. When the First World War pulled men into the trenches, women took their places in the factories and on the pitch; the Dick, Kerr Ladies drew 10,000 spectators to a charity match in 1917, only to be shoved back into domestic invisibility once the men returned. And in Brazil, where the colonial elite first played football in whites-only clubs, Black, mixed-race, and Indigenous players took the imported game and reinvented it. Arthur Friedenreich, son of a German businessman and a Black washerwoman, fouled without protection because referees refused to blow the whistle for him, learned to weave and swerve and vanish from contact. That is where the dribble was born. The dribble developed as an act of survival and resistance, a body making itself impossible to catch in a world built to exclude it.
History has a wonderful way of exposing commercial breaks, all-knowing sensors, and presidential phone calls for the small, ridiculous things they are. The game has always been a site of capture and a site of escape. Maradona was a genius and a scoundrel, the hand of God and the man ruined by it. We should not sanctify the players or the fans or the game itself. The Egyptian ultras who helped topple President Hosni Mubarak, who stood in Tahrir Square and paid for it with their lives at Port Said, also carried their own contradictions. Everything is a story of everything. There is no pure resistance untouched by the thing it resists.
But there is always resistance. That is the point French philosopher Michel Foucault wrote about brilliantly: Where there is power, there is resistance, not outside it, but woven through it. The disciplinary schoolyard produced the combination game. The colonial clubs produced Friedenreich's dribble. The chip in the ball, and the biases it has laundered into data, produced an Egyptian federation that stood up to corporate oligarchs, and a Kansas college town that decided, sensor or no sensor, to throw a party for a team it had no obligation to love. And this summer, a nation of half a million people produced something no sensor could measure at all.
The Blue Sharks of Cabo Verde had never been to a World Cup. Ranked 67th in the world, they drew with Spain, scored their first-ever World Cup goal against Uruguay, and clawed their way out of the group as its runners-up, the first debutant to reach the knockout stage since Slovakia in 2010. Then, in the Round of 32, they met the reigning champions, Messi and Argentina, and refused to be a footnote. Messi scored early. Cabo Verde equalized in the second half. Argentina retook the lead two minutes into extra time. Cabo Verde equalized again, in the 103rd minute, when Sidny Lopes Cabral curled a shot into the top corner that made me want to kneel on the ground in a prayer of gratitude. Then in the chaos of bodies clashing deep in the second period of extra time, mere minutes from penalties, Argentina scored to survive, 3-2. The reigning champions of the world barely avoided the biggest upset in World Cup history, against a nation smaller than most American counties.
And Cabo Verde was incandescent. They were brilliant. They played the beautiful game with joy. A tiny island nation, a former Portuguese colony, had stood on the largest stage the sport offers and refused fear, anger, and pettiness. They embodied joy. No sensor could register what that meant. No commercial break could sell it. No phone call from any president could reverse it.
Football, no matter how much authoritarians and corporate greed try to stifle it, is the art of the unforeseeable. Just as we are.
And then the final offered us an impeccable microcosm of the metanarrative. Spain beat Argentina 1-0, a tournament of collective, patient, disciplined possession culminating in a team that simply held the ball and refused to be provoked, that stayed connected until the opposition frayed. Argentina was formidable and proud, and played most of extra time a man down after a red card. This was no clean fable of virtue over villainy, only two proud teams and their contradictions. On Sunday we watched lessons unfolding on the pitch that we need to hang on to during these times of rising authoritarianism: hold your shape, keep the ball, don't let the other side bait you into their game, and the pressure eventually tells on them, not you.
And there, lingering in the confetti where he did not belong, was Trump, booed as he took the stage, presenting the trophy and then refusing to leave it, until Infantino had to usher him aside so the winners could have their moment. Two Argentine players declined his handshake. And by the next morning, Spain's football federation had posted its official victory photo with the president cropped cleanly out of the frame. Trump could not bully himself into the celebration of the victors. He did not earn his place on the podium. And the Spanish team preserved their joy and made sure history would center those who earned their place.
The powerful will keep trying to program the game down to its smallest detail, to meter its joy, monetize its pauses, and bend its rules toward whoever holds the most valuable tickets and the peace prizes. Yet. The ball keeps moving in ways the sensors did not predict. The dribble keeps being invented, on waste ground and back streets, by people the game was designed to exclude. Football continues to be the art of the unforeseeable. It was never theirs to own. It was always, at its heart, ours.
My father, after working third shifts at a car parts factory in the Midwest, would stay awake to watch the World Cup, screaming at judgments refs made, screaming at the striker who refused to be a team player and let others score who were in better positions.
What would he say, the man who survived torture by an authoritarian state, the man who risked everything so his children could join him eventually in the "land of the free"? I can't say for certain. I did not inherit his gift for spicy gab; my father was hilarious, with a fantastically foul mouth and a searing sense of humor. But maybe I can tap into that sometimes-comic rage. Trump is a grifter, and state leaders and corporations regularly buy his favors. He has tried to ruin everything meaningful about this country: our excellent higher education system, our ability to coexist in diverse joy and learn and create and build together, our immigrant sisters and brothers, our trans sisters and brothers, any of us trying to survive by working hard. He has mocked our love of this world and of each other. And now, no surprise, he is trying to squeeze the soul out of this sport too.
But my dad and Eduardo Galeano are both right. Football, no matter how much authoritarians and corporate greed try to stifle it, is the art of the unforeseeable. Just as we are. They have not written our future. We are writing it. Football is just another reminder that yes, things are entangled and complicated, and our gods are also scoundrels, and a sensor can be wrong even when it insists it cannot be. But we are the ones writing what comes next, and the unforeseeable, stubborn and ungovernable, is our power too.
Today, House Republican Representative Harriet Hageman introduced legislation under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to revoke California's Clean Air Act waiver allowing the state to enforce stronger than federal greenhouse gas standards for vehicles.
This legislation targets policy that is already fully phased in, which means cars impacted by it are already on the road. The move is the latest attempt by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration to dismantle longstanding clean air protections and undermine states' ability to protect residents from dangerous vehicle pollution.
In response to the bill introduction, Sierra Club Climate Policy Director Patrick Drupp released the following statement:
"Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are once again putting Big Oil's profits ahead of Americans' health and wallets. California's Clean Air Act waivers have delivered cleaner air, driven innovation, and saved drivers money for decades.
"American families are facing rising costs and worsening climate impacts, and Republicans in Congress are wasting time attacking states’ rights to cleaner air to satisfy Trump’s anti-clean car obsession.
"Nullifying California’s clean vehicle waivers will not make cars more affordable. Sierra Club will continue fighting to defend these lifesaving protections and states' rights to protect the air their residents breathe."