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.
Larry Summers is out. But who is in?
On Sunday afternoon, Administration sources leaked to the Wall Street Journal an exchange of letters between Summers and President Obama.
Summers wrote: "I have reluctantly concluded that any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interest of the Federal Reserve, the Administration or, ultimately, the interests of the nation's ongoing economic recovery."
Obama, in reply, praised Summers as "a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small part because of his expertise, wisdom, and leadership that we wrestled the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing today."
But behind the polite exchange, a frantic politics was at work. In such circumstances, at some point the political team realizes that a nomination is a lost cause, word is passed to the prospective nominee that it's over, and a gracious exchange of letters is drafted. It's hard to believe Larry Summers, of all people, voluntarily falling on his sword for the greater good.
This past week, a fourth skeptical Democratic member of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, made clear that he would not support Summers; Republican opposition mounted; Joseph Stiglitz published a devastating bill of particulars in the New York Times online; and the Times itself ran a scathing editorial.
A prestigious group of over 350 economists sent a letter to the White House urging the appointment of Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen and not Summers. All of this gave a preview of an explosive confirmation hearing.
Meanwhile, the president and his allies in Congress have a looming government shutdown to prevent, and the last thing they need is a nomination that was becoming more contentious by the day. Well placed sources say Summers met with Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday to see if he could enlist her support, and Warren declined. That was probably the coup de grace.
Looking backwards at this debacle, it's clear that Obama's economic team did not serve him well, either substantively or tactically. Summers as chair of the Fed was always going to be a lightning rod, because of his temperament, his sketchy record as president of Harvard, his close association with the deregulation that invited the financial collapse, and the high-profile consulting gigs on Wall Street that he took since leaving government in 2010.
Tactically, what unfolded in August and September was bizarre. Instead of the administration vetting Summers for hidden confirmation problems, deciding that he was an acceptable risk, and Obama announcing the appointment, what we got was a slow drip of leaks that Summers was the president's first choice. But that only served to rally Summers' opposition. It would have been much more difficult for opposition within the Democratic Party to fester if Obama had simply announced his choice.
Looking backward, it's clear that Obama was not quite convinced. He was ambivalent about Summers, just as he was ambivalent about attacking Syria. Letting the pro-Summers leaks proceed was his way of splitting the difference between his own qualms and the advice of his senior economic staff.
Often overlooked is the fact that Summers and his close ally Robert Rubin pressed Obama to appoint Summers to chair the Fed when Ben Bernanke's first term expired in 2011 -- but Obama stuck with Bernanke; and that Summers made a serious run at being president of the World Bank in 2012, but again Obama passed on Summers and appointed Dartmouth President and public health expert Jim Yong Kim.
With opposition to Summers mounting, Obama even took the unusual step of calling in a group of journalists and bloggers for a background session indicating that Summers was still his first choice. The White House tried to create a politics of inevitability, but the opposition kept growing.
Because of the several weeks of clumsy leaks and Obama's personal association with Summers, now the president doesn't have the usual deniability that comes when a trial balloon is shot down. He is personally associated with a flawed and failed nomination.
What now? Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen is the most qualified candidate, the prospective first woman Fed chair, and a favorite of Democratic progressives. But the same senior economic advisers and their Wall Street advisers who led Obama down the garden path on Summers are mounting a last-ditch anybody-but-Yellen effort.
Supposedly, Obama looked weak when he failed to stand by Summers and he will look even weaker if he is browbeaten by Yellen admirers into giving her the appointment. But if Obama's economic team prevails on that advice, they will be compounding one serious disservice with another.
Among the other names being floated are former Fed Vice Chair Don Kohn, now retired, another former Fed Vice Chair Roger Ferguson, currently CEO of TIAA-CREF (who is African American), and former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who reportedly doesn't want the job. Obama's advisers have also been beating the bushes for presentable women. Among the people mentioned are Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook and yet another close protege of Robert Rubin, and Lael Brainard, the undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (neither of whom has Fed experience).
The problem with these people is that they all represent ways of passing over the exceptionally qualified Yellen. In her service as vice-chair of the Fed, and before that as president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, as a governor of the Fed, and as chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, Yellen has been superb. Were it not for the failed attempt to install Summers, Yellen is the logical choice to succeed Bernanke. The fact that she is a woman is another plus, but she is also simply the most qualified candidate.
It also happens that Yellen has been outspoken on the need to target a lower unemployment rate, a goal that serves the nation and the Obama Administration. Yellen has already been confirmed to her present post. There is nothing in her record that would produce a contentious hearing other than predictable and contained opposition from rightwing Republicans. (In July 2010, the Senate Banking Committee voted to conform her, 17-6.)
Uncertainty is said to be bad for the economy. A second round of protracted uncertainty about who will be the next chair is not good either for the recovery or for the administration. President Obama should put a swift end to this interregnum by appointing Janet Yellen.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Larry Summers is out. But who is in?
On Sunday afternoon, Administration sources leaked to the Wall Street Journal an exchange of letters between Summers and President Obama.
Summers wrote: "I have reluctantly concluded that any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interest of the Federal Reserve, the Administration or, ultimately, the interests of the nation's ongoing economic recovery."
Obama, in reply, praised Summers as "a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small part because of his expertise, wisdom, and leadership that we wrestled the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing today."
But behind the polite exchange, a frantic politics was at work. In such circumstances, at some point the political team realizes that a nomination is a lost cause, word is passed to the prospective nominee that it's over, and a gracious exchange of letters is drafted. It's hard to believe Larry Summers, of all people, voluntarily falling on his sword for the greater good.
This past week, a fourth skeptical Democratic member of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, made clear that he would not support Summers; Republican opposition mounted; Joseph Stiglitz published a devastating bill of particulars in the New York Times online; and the Times itself ran a scathing editorial.
A prestigious group of over 350 economists sent a letter to the White House urging the appointment of Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen and not Summers. All of this gave a preview of an explosive confirmation hearing.
Meanwhile, the president and his allies in Congress have a looming government shutdown to prevent, and the last thing they need is a nomination that was becoming more contentious by the day. Well placed sources say Summers met with Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday to see if he could enlist her support, and Warren declined. That was probably the coup de grace.
Looking backwards at this debacle, it's clear that Obama's economic team did not serve him well, either substantively or tactically. Summers as chair of the Fed was always going to be a lightning rod, because of his temperament, his sketchy record as president of Harvard, his close association with the deregulation that invited the financial collapse, and the high-profile consulting gigs on Wall Street that he took since leaving government in 2010.
Tactically, what unfolded in August and September was bizarre. Instead of the administration vetting Summers for hidden confirmation problems, deciding that he was an acceptable risk, and Obama announcing the appointment, what we got was a slow drip of leaks that Summers was the president's first choice. But that only served to rally Summers' opposition. It would have been much more difficult for opposition within the Democratic Party to fester if Obama had simply announced his choice.
Looking backward, it's clear that Obama was not quite convinced. He was ambivalent about Summers, just as he was ambivalent about attacking Syria. Letting the pro-Summers leaks proceed was his way of splitting the difference between his own qualms and the advice of his senior economic staff.
Often overlooked is the fact that Summers and his close ally Robert Rubin pressed Obama to appoint Summers to chair the Fed when Ben Bernanke's first term expired in 2011 -- but Obama stuck with Bernanke; and that Summers made a serious run at being president of the World Bank in 2012, but again Obama passed on Summers and appointed Dartmouth President and public health expert Jim Yong Kim.
With opposition to Summers mounting, Obama even took the unusual step of calling in a group of journalists and bloggers for a background session indicating that Summers was still his first choice. The White House tried to create a politics of inevitability, but the opposition kept growing.
Because of the several weeks of clumsy leaks and Obama's personal association with Summers, now the president doesn't have the usual deniability that comes when a trial balloon is shot down. He is personally associated with a flawed and failed nomination.
What now? Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen is the most qualified candidate, the prospective first woman Fed chair, and a favorite of Democratic progressives. But the same senior economic advisers and their Wall Street advisers who led Obama down the garden path on Summers are mounting a last-ditch anybody-but-Yellen effort.
Supposedly, Obama looked weak when he failed to stand by Summers and he will look even weaker if he is browbeaten by Yellen admirers into giving her the appointment. But if Obama's economic team prevails on that advice, they will be compounding one serious disservice with another.
Among the other names being floated are former Fed Vice Chair Don Kohn, now retired, another former Fed Vice Chair Roger Ferguson, currently CEO of TIAA-CREF (who is African American), and former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who reportedly doesn't want the job. Obama's advisers have also been beating the bushes for presentable women. Among the people mentioned are Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook and yet another close protege of Robert Rubin, and Lael Brainard, the undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (neither of whom has Fed experience).
The problem with these people is that they all represent ways of passing over the exceptionally qualified Yellen. In her service as vice-chair of the Fed, and before that as president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, as a governor of the Fed, and as chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, Yellen has been superb. Were it not for the failed attempt to install Summers, Yellen is the logical choice to succeed Bernanke. The fact that she is a woman is another plus, but she is also simply the most qualified candidate.
It also happens that Yellen has been outspoken on the need to target a lower unemployment rate, a goal that serves the nation and the Obama Administration. Yellen has already been confirmed to her present post. There is nothing in her record that would produce a contentious hearing other than predictable and contained opposition from rightwing Republicans. (In July 2010, the Senate Banking Committee voted to conform her, 17-6.)
Uncertainty is said to be bad for the economy. A second round of protracted uncertainty about who will be the next chair is not good either for the recovery or for the administration. President Obama should put a swift end to this interregnum by appointing Janet Yellen.
Larry Summers is out. But who is in?
On Sunday afternoon, Administration sources leaked to the Wall Street Journal an exchange of letters between Summers and President Obama.
Summers wrote: "I have reluctantly concluded that any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interest of the Federal Reserve, the Administration or, ultimately, the interests of the nation's ongoing economic recovery."
Obama, in reply, praised Summers as "a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small part because of his expertise, wisdom, and leadership that we wrestled the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing today."
But behind the polite exchange, a frantic politics was at work. In such circumstances, at some point the political team realizes that a nomination is a lost cause, word is passed to the prospective nominee that it's over, and a gracious exchange of letters is drafted. It's hard to believe Larry Summers, of all people, voluntarily falling on his sword for the greater good.
This past week, a fourth skeptical Democratic member of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, made clear that he would not support Summers; Republican opposition mounted; Joseph Stiglitz published a devastating bill of particulars in the New York Times online; and the Times itself ran a scathing editorial.
A prestigious group of over 350 economists sent a letter to the White House urging the appointment of Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen and not Summers. All of this gave a preview of an explosive confirmation hearing.
Meanwhile, the president and his allies in Congress have a looming government shutdown to prevent, and the last thing they need is a nomination that was becoming more contentious by the day. Well placed sources say Summers met with Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday to see if he could enlist her support, and Warren declined. That was probably the coup de grace.
Looking backwards at this debacle, it's clear that Obama's economic team did not serve him well, either substantively or tactically. Summers as chair of the Fed was always going to be a lightning rod, because of his temperament, his sketchy record as president of Harvard, his close association with the deregulation that invited the financial collapse, and the high-profile consulting gigs on Wall Street that he took since leaving government in 2010.
Tactically, what unfolded in August and September was bizarre. Instead of the administration vetting Summers for hidden confirmation problems, deciding that he was an acceptable risk, and Obama announcing the appointment, what we got was a slow drip of leaks that Summers was the president's first choice. But that only served to rally Summers' opposition. It would have been much more difficult for opposition within the Democratic Party to fester if Obama had simply announced his choice.
Looking backward, it's clear that Obama was not quite convinced. He was ambivalent about Summers, just as he was ambivalent about attacking Syria. Letting the pro-Summers leaks proceed was his way of splitting the difference between his own qualms and the advice of his senior economic staff.
Often overlooked is the fact that Summers and his close ally Robert Rubin pressed Obama to appoint Summers to chair the Fed when Ben Bernanke's first term expired in 2011 -- but Obama stuck with Bernanke; and that Summers made a serious run at being president of the World Bank in 2012, but again Obama passed on Summers and appointed Dartmouth President and public health expert Jim Yong Kim.
With opposition to Summers mounting, Obama even took the unusual step of calling in a group of journalists and bloggers for a background session indicating that Summers was still his first choice. The White House tried to create a politics of inevitability, but the opposition kept growing.
Because of the several weeks of clumsy leaks and Obama's personal association with Summers, now the president doesn't have the usual deniability that comes when a trial balloon is shot down. He is personally associated with a flawed and failed nomination.
What now? Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen is the most qualified candidate, the prospective first woman Fed chair, and a favorite of Democratic progressives. But the same senior economic advisers and their Wall Street advisers who led Obama down the garden path on Summers are mounting a last-ditch anybody-but-Yellen effort.
Supposedly, Obama looked weak when he failed to stand by Summers and he will look even weaker if he is browbeaten by Yellen admirers into giving her the appointment. But if Obama's economic team prevails on that advice, they will be compounding one serious disservice with another.
Among the other names being floated are former Fed Vice Chair Don Kohn, now retired, another former Fed Vice Chair Roger Ferguson, currently CEO of TIAA-CREF (who is African American), and former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who reportedly doesn't want the job. Obama's advisers have also been beating the bushes for presentable women. Among the people mentioned are Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook and yet another close protege of Robert Rubin, and Lael Brainard, the undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (neither of whom has Fed experience).
The problem with these people is that they all represent ways of passing over the exceptionally qualified Yellen. In her service as vice-chair of the Fed, and before that as president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, as a governor of the Fed, and as chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, Yellen has been superb. Were it not for the failed attempt to install Summers, Yellen is the logical choice to succeed Bernanke. The fact that she is a woman is another plus, but she is also simply the most qualified candidate.
It also happens that Yellen has been outspoken on the need to target a lower unemployment rate, a goal that serves the nation and the Obama Administration. Yellen has already been confirmed to her present post. There is nothing in her record that would produce a contentious hearing other than predictable and contained opposition from rightwing Republicans. (In July 2010, the Senate Banking Committee voted to conform her, 17-6.)
Uncertainty is said to be bad for the economy. A second round of protracted uncertainty about who will be the next chair is not good either for the recovery or for the administration. President Obama should put a swift end to this interregnum by appointing Janet Yellen.
"What is it going to take for Senate Republicans to oppose this unfit nominee? Every Republican senator who votes to confirm Bove will be complicit in undermining the rule of law and judicial independence."
After a second whistleblower came forward claiming that Emil Bove III instructed attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice to ignore federal court orders, his critics on Friday renewed calls for the Senate to reject the DOJ official's appointment as an appellate judge.
"Evidence is growing that Emil Bove urged Department of Justice lawyers to ignore federal court orders. That alone should disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful courts in our country," said Sean Eldridge, president and founder of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, in a statement.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced in late May that he would nominate Bove, his former personal attorney, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Then, last month, a whistleblower complaint was filed by Erez Reuveni, who was fired from the DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation in April after expressing concerns about the Kilmar Ábrego García case.
On Friday, as the Republican-controlled Senate was moving toward confirming Bove, the group Whistleblower Aid announced that another former Justice Department lawyer, whose name is not being disclosed, "has lawfully disclosed evidence to the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General that corroborates the thrust of the whistleblower claims" from Reuveni.
"Loyalty to one individual must never outweigh supporting and protecting the fundamental rights of those living in the United States."
"What we're seeing here is something I never thought would be possible on such a wide scale: federal prosecutors appointed by the Trump administration intentionally presenting dubious if not outright false evidence to a court of jurisdiction in cases that impact a person's fundamental rights not only under our Constitution, but their natural rights as humans," said Whistleblower Aid chief legal counsel Andrew Bakaj in a statement.
"What this means is that federal career attorneys who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution are now being pressured to abdicate that promise in favor of fealty to a single person, specifically Donald Trump. Loyalty to one individual must never outweigh supporting and protecting the fundamental rights of those living in the United States," Bakaj added. "Our client and Mr. Reuveni are true patriots—prioritizing their commitment to democracy over advancing their careers."
Bove has also faced mounting opposition—including from dozens of former judges—due to his embrace of the so-called "unitary executive theory" as well as his positions on a potential third Trump term and the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by the president's supporters.
The Senate on Thursday voted 50-48 to proceed with the consideration of Bove's nomination. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) joined all Democrats in opposition. Responding in a statement, Demand Justice interim executive director Maggie Jo Buchanan warned that "Bove will be a stain on the judiciary if confirmed."
"Voting to confirm Trump's judicial nominees to lifetime seats on the federal bench, as he wages a war on the very idea of judicial independence, is an unacceptable choice for any senator who believes in our democracy and the importance of individual rights," said Buchanan, who also blasted the Senate's Tuesday confirmation of Joshua Divine to be a U.S. district judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.
"Trump and his MAGA allies are helping him consolidate power in the executive branch, attacking judges who dare to rule against his interests, and targeting Trump's perceived political enemies—all while seemingly unconcerned about the future this sets up for our nation," she stressed. "Every senator will have to decide where they stand when it comes to this assault on our country's values—and that choice will not be forgotten."
After news of the second whistleblower complaint broke on Friday, Stand Up America's Eldridge declared that "again and again, Bove has proven he lacks the temperament, integrity, and independence to serve on the federal bench. He's nothing more than a political foot soldier doing Trump's bidding."
"What is it going to take for Senate Republicans to oppose this unfit nominee?" he added. "Every Republican senator who votes to confirm Bove will be complicit in undermining the rule of law and judicial independence."
"This administration deserves no credit for just barely averting a crisis they themselves set in motion," said one Democratic senator.
While welcoming reporting that the Trump administration will release more than $5 billion in federal funding for schools that it has been withholding for nearly a month, U.S. educators and others said Friday that the funds should never have been held up in the first place and warned that the attempt to do so was just one part of an ongoing campaign to undermine public education.
The Trump administration placed nearly $7 billion in federal education funding for K-12 public schools under review last month, then released $1.3 billion of it last week amid legal action and widespread backlash. An administration official speaking on condition of anonymity told The Washington Post that all reviews of remaining funding are now over.
"There is no good reason for the chaos and stress this president has inflicted on students, teachers, and parents across America for the last month, and it shouldn't take widespread blowback for this administration to do its job and simply get the funding out the door that Congress has delivered to help students," U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Friday.
"This administration deserves no credit for just barely averting a crisis they themselves set in motion," Murray added. "You don't thank a burglar for returning your cash after you've spent a month figuring out if you'd have to sell your house to make up the difference."
🚨After unlawfully withholding billions in education funding for schools, the Trump Admin. has reversed course.This is a massive victory for students, educators, & families who depend on these essential resources.And it's a testament to public pressure & relentless organizing.
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@pressley.house.gov) July 25, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward—which represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's funding freeze—said Friday that "if these reports are true, this is a major victory for public education and the communities it serves."
"This news following our legal challenge is a direct result of collective action by educators, families, and advocates across the country," Perryman asserted. "These funds are critical to keeping teachers in classrooms, supporting students in vulnerable conditions, and ensuring schools can offer the programs and services that every child deserves."
"While this development shows that legal and public pressure can make a difference, school districts, parents, and educators should not have to take the administration to court to secure funds for their students," she added. "Our promise to the people remains: We will go to court to protect the rights and well-being of all people living in America."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes—a plaintiff in a separate lawsuit challenging the withholding—attributed the administration's backpedaling to litigatory pressure, arguing that the funding "should never have been withheld in the first place."
They released the 7 B IN SCHOOL FUNDS!! This is a huge win. It means fighting back matters. Fighting for what kids & communities need is always the right thing to do! www.washingtonpost.com/education/20...
[image or embed]
— Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten.bsky.social) July 25, 2025 at 11:46 AM
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association—the largest U.S. labor union—said in a statement: "Playing games with students' futures has real-world consequences. School districts in every state have been scrambling to figure out how they will continue to meet student needs without this vital federal funding, and many students in parts of the country have already headed back to school. These reckless funding delays have undermined planning, staffing, and support services at a time when schools should be focused on preparing students for success."
"Sadly, this is part of a broader pattern by this administration of undermining public education—starving it of resources, sowing distrust, and pushing privatization at the expense of the nation's most vulnerable students," Pringle added. "And they are doing this at the same time Congress has passed a budget bill that will devastate our students, schools, and communities by slashing funds meant for public education, healthcare, and keeping students from their school meals—all to finance massive tax breaks for billionaires."
While expanding support for private education, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month weakens public school programs including before- and after-school initiatives and services for English language learners.
"Sadly, this is part of a broader pattern by this administration of undermining public education."
Trump also signed an executive order in March directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin the process of shutting down the Department of Education—a longtime goal of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led roadmap for a far-right takeover and gutting of the federal government closely linked to Trump, despite his unconvincing efforts to distance himself from the highly controversial and unpopular plan.
Earlier this week, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office determined that the U.S. Health and Human Services Department illegally impounded crucial funds from the Head Start program, which provides comprehensive early childhood education, health, nutrition, and other services to low-income families.
"Instead of spending the last many weeks figuring out how to improve after-school options and get our kids' reading and math scores up, because of President Trump, communities across the country have been forced to spend their time cutting back on tutoring options and sorting out how many teachers they will have to lay off," Murray noted.
"It's time for President Trump, Secretary McMahon, and [Office of Management and Budget Director] Russ Vought to stop playing games with students' futures and families' livelihoods—and end their illegal assault on our students and their schools," the senator added.
"You want history books to not record you as an evil genocide supporter?" said one organizer. "You need to actually make an impact, NOW."
U.S. college students are still facing punishment for protesting Israel's U.S.-backed bombardment of Gaza and its starvation of more than 2 million Palestinians there, with Columbia University announcing this week the suspension and expulsion of dozens of students who spoke out over the past year.
But a number of observers have pointed to a shift in the rhetoric of some of the student organizers' biggest detractors in recent days, with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notably saying Thursday that "thousands of children in Gaza are at risk of starvation while trucks full of food sit waiting across the border" and calling for "the full flow of humanitarian assistance" to be restored.
Clinton didn't mention the Israeli blockade that has kept food from reaching Palestinians, more than 120 of whom have now died of starvation, or the at least $12.5 billion in military aid the U.S. has provided to Israel since the blockade first began in October 2023—in violation of U.S. laws prohibiting the government from giving military aid to countries that block humanitarian aid.
The former Democratic presidential nominee also didn't acknowledge the remarks she made in May 2024 about the campus protests that were spreading across the country, with students demanding that their schools divest from companies that work with the Israeli government and that the country end its support for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
At the time, Clinton said students who oppose Israel's policies in Gaza and the West Bank "don't know very much" about the conflict there. Clinton and other politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have repeated the familiar phrase, "Israel has a right to defend itself" as the IDF has attacked so-called "safe zones," hospitals, and refugee camps.
Some suggested her comments on Thursday appeared to be those of an influential political figure who's come to a realization about the situation that both the Biden and Trump administrations, with bipartisan support from Congress, have helped to bring about in Gaza.
"Seems mostly like all the recent photos of starving children are responsible for this shift, though humanitarian aid groups have been warning about this for months and months," said Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein.
One observer said Clinton and a number of European leaders are speaking out now because Israel has already "carried out their final solution."
As Common Dreams reported this week, Integrated Food Security Phase Classification has said that 85% of people in Gaza are now in Phase 5 of famine, defined at "an extreme deprivation of food."
New York Times columnist Megan Stack said she welcomed anyone who is "[waking] up" to the reality of man-made mass starvation made possible by U.S. support, but called it "an absolute indictment of the center-left, such as it is, that it took pictures of dying, skeletal babies with trash bags for diapers to muster this pale response."
"Subtext: We can stomach mass bombings, but starvation is a bridge too far," said Stack.
The comments from Clinton coincided with a shift in the corporate media's coverage of Gaza, with major outlets focusing heavily on the impact of starvation.
Organizer and attorney Aaron Regunberg said that instead of simply doing "reputational damage control by speaking up in these very last moments," powerful political leaders must "shut shit down."
"You want history books to not record you as an evil genocide supporter?" said Regunberg. "One speech now—after countless speeches condemning those who have been speaking out—ain't gonna cut it... You need to go to Gaza. You need to actually make an impact, NOW."
Progressive organizer Lindsey Boylan wondered whether establishment leaders "will ever admit that smearing all protests to stop the genocide actually contributed to the genocide."
"Few people could have played a more pivotal role in shaping the democratic response to prevent genocide," said Boylan of Clinton's comments. "Now here we are. Watching mass death of kids."
On Friday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has consistently demanded that the Biden and Trump administrations stop funding Israel's assault on Gaza and warned of the impact mass starvation would have, issued his latest call for U.S. support to end immediately.
"American taxpayer dollars are being used to starve children, bomb civilians, and support the cruelty of [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his criminal ministers," said Sanders. "Enough is enough. The White House and Congress must immediately act to end this war using the full scope of American influence. No more military aid to the Netanyahu government. History will condemn those who fail to act in the face of this horror."