The measure would expand the sanctions under a previous law to include actions like forced family separations and organ harvesting. It would also deny entry to the U.S. for people found to have participated in forced abortions or sterilizations. In interviews with RFA Uyghur, Uyghur women have detailed birth control procedures they say were forced on them by authorities in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

The bill would bar the U.S. military from buying Chinese seafood out of concern that Uyghur and North Korean forced labor is used in its production.

It would direct the State Department to create a plan for countering Chinese propaganda that denies “the genocide, crimes against humanity, and other egregious human rights abusese experienced by Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethic groups” in Xinjiang. It would also appropriate $2 million for the Smithsonian to create research and programs that would preserve Uyghur language and culture threatened by the Chinese government.

“The evidence is clear. The Chinese Communist Party has waged a deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy the Uyghur people through forced sterilization, mass internment, and forced labor,” Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), the chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said in a statement. “This legislation ensures the United States holds accountable not only the perpetrators of these horrific crimes but also those who support or profit from them.”

Joining Sullivan in co-sponsoring the bill are Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.).

Rushan Abbas, executive director of the Campaign for Uyghurs, a U.S.-based nonprofit advocacy group, and the chairwoman of the Executive Committee of the World Uyghur Congress, an international organization promoting Uyghur rights, said the measure’s introduction is “a critical step toward dismantling the systems of control and repression that have enabled genocide and devastated Uyghur families and communities.”

“For Uyghurs who have endured years of silence and separation, this bill represents a meaningful step toward exposing the truth, advancing justice, and creating pathways to family reunification,” Abbas told RFA.

U.S. lawmakers this week also planned to release a bill that would aim to help Taiwan and support countries that maintain official diplomatic relations with its government, as well as a measure to combat efforts by any foreign government to reach beyond its borders to intimidate, harass or harm activists, dissidents or journalists.

In response to the bills, China’s foreign ministry on Tuesday rejected U.S. accusations on Xinjiang and Taiwan.

“The related accusations are entirely fabricated and are malicious slander,” the ministry said.

The measures come as an Aug. 12 deadline looms for a durable trade deal between the U.S. and China. A U.S. official told reporters that progress is being made toward a deal, Reuters reported Friday.

Includes reporting by Reuters.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

President Donald Trump on July 4 signed into law an omnibus reconciliation bill, branded in MAGA propaganda (and much of corporate media) as the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The legislation scraped up just enough votes to narrowly pass in both chambers of the Republican-controlled Congress, with 51 to 50 votes in the Senate and 218 to 214 in the House.

The focal point of the bill is a $4.5 trillion tax cut, partly paid for by unprecedented slashes in funding for healthcare and food assistance. The wealthiest 10% will gain $12,000 a year from the legislation, while it will cost the lowest-earning 10% of families $1,600 annually. Media addressed the fiscal aspects of the bill, though more often through a fixation on the federal debt rather than looking at the effect of the budget on inequality (FAIR.org, 7/17/25).

But it’s not just a question of money. Many of the bill’s key provisions—including Medicaid, SNAP and clean energy cuts, as well as handouts to the fossil fuel, military and detention industries—will be literally deadly for people in the US and abroad, in both the near and long term.

FAIR’s Belén Fernandez (7/9/25) closely examined the dramatic lack of coverage of the vast expansion of the government’s anti-immigrant capacities. But the deadly consequences of the other aspects of the bill were also remarkably underexplained to the public.

To see how major media explained the contents and consequences of the reconciliation bill to the public before its enactment, FAIR surveyed New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and NPR news coverage from the Senate’s passage of the final version of the bill on July 1 through July 4, the day Trump signed the bill into law. This time frame, when the actual contents of the bill were known and the House was deliberating on giving it an up or down vote, was arguably the moment when media attention was most critical to the democratic process.

‘We all are going to die’

This USA Today article (7/1/25) was one of the more informative in detailing the impact of the bill, but it still fell short of detailing the projected cost in human lives.

While corporate media reported that the finalized bill with the Senate’s revisions would significantly cut healthcare funding to subsidize the tax breaks, they rarely explained the social consequences of such cuts. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill will reduce $1.04 trillion in funding for Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next decade. This will strip health insurance from 11.8 million people.

The New York Times (7/1/25), acknowledging these statistics, quoted Democrats who opposed the bill due to “the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid,” and who noted that people will soon “see the damage that is done as hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, as the debt increases.”

But the outlets in our sample, at this crucial time of heightened attention, failed to mention the most significant consequence of cutting Medicaid: death.

These outlets (New York Times, 5/30/25; NPR, 5/31/25; CNN, 5/31/25;  Washington Post, 6/1/25) had all earlier acknowledged what the Times called Sen. Joni Ernst’s (R-IA) “morbid” response to her constituents’ concerns about deaths from Medicaid cuts: “Well, we all are going to die.”

But as the House deliberated on whether these cuts would become law, these outlets failed to reference credible research that projected that the large-scale loss of health insurance envisioned by the bill would have an annual death toll in the tens of thousands. One USA Today piece (7/1/25) did headline that “Trump’s Tax Bill Could Cut Medicaid for Millions of Americans,” but didn’t spell out the potential cost in human lives.

Before the Senate’s revisions, researchers from Yale’s School of Public Health and UPenn’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Penn LDI, 6/3/25) projected that such massive cuts to healthcare would result in 51,000 deaths annually. That number is expected to be even higher now, as the calculation was based on an earlier CBO estimate of 7.7 million people losing coverage over the next decade (CBO, 5/11/25).

‘Harms to healthcare’—not to people

CNN (7/4/25) euphemized life-threatening withdrawal of care as “harm to the healthcare system.”

CNN (7/4/25), in a piece on “Who Stands to Gain From the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’ And Who May Struggle,” similarly failed to spell out the dire consequences of the Medicaid cuts. It wrote that low-income Americans would be “worse off” thanks to those cuts, yet it extensively described only the fiscal impacts, as opposed to the costs in life and health, on lower- and middle-class families.

Hospitals would also be “worse off” due to the bill, as it would “leave them with more uncompensated care costs for treating uninsured patients.” This rhetorically rendered the patient, made uninsured by legislation, a burden.

The article quoted American Hospital Association CEO Rick Pollack, who said that

the real-life consequences…will result in irreparable harm to our healthcare system, reducing access to care for all Americans and severely undermining the ability of hospitals and health systems to care for our most vulnerable patients.

But CNN refused to spell out to readers what that “harm to the healthcare system” would mean: beyond “reducing access,” it would cause people to die preventable deaths.

Outlets often seemed more concerned with the impact of the bill on lawmakers’ political survival than its impact on their low-income constituents’ actual survival. The Washington Post (7/4/25), though acknowledging that their poll revealed that “two-thirds [of Americans] said they had heard either little or nothing about [the bill],” made little or no effort to contribute to an informed public. Instead, it focused on analyzing the “Six Ways Trump’s Tax Bill Could Shape the Battle for Control of Congress.”

The New York Times (7/1/25) similarly observed that the Senate Republicans’ “hard-fought legislative win came at considerable risk to their party’s political futures and fiscal legacy.” In another article (7/1/25), they noticed that it was the “more moderate and politically vulnerable Republicans” who “repeated their opposition to [the bill’s] cuts to Medicaid.”

‘Winners and losers’

“Opponents of the bill say the proposed cuts will leave millions of adults and children hungry”; the New York Times (7/1/25) apparently doesn’t know whether that’s true or not.

The Medicaid cuts aren’t the only part of the bill that will result in unnecessary deaths. The bill will cut $186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a program that helps low-income individuals and families buy food. CBO (5/22/25) estimated that 3.2 million people under the age of 65 will lose food assistance. This contraction is expected to be even more deadly than the healthcare cutbacks: The same researchers from UPenn (7/2/25), along with NYU Langone Health, projected that losing SNAP benefits will result in 93,000 premature deaths between now and 2039.

SNAP cuts were mostly only mentioned alongside Medicaid, if at all (Washington Post, 7/3/25; New York Times, 7/3/25; CNN, 7/4/25). And when they did decide to dedicate a whole article to the singular provision, they rarely ventured beyond the fiscal impacts of such cuts into real, tangible consequences, such as food insecurity, hunger and death. The New York Times (7/1/25) asked “how many people will be affected,” but didn’t bother to ask “how will people be affected?”

What’s more, according to the Center for American Progress (7/7/25), the bill’s repeal of incentives for energy efficiency and improved air quality “will likely lead to 430 avoidable deaths every year by 2030 and 930 by 2035.”

The New York Times (7/3/25), however, analyzed this outcome as a changing landscape with “energy winners and losers.” It described how the bill will eliminate tax credits that have encouraged the electrification of homes and alleviated energy costs for millions of families. Somehow, the “loser” here (and all throughout the article) is the abstract concept of “energy efficiency” and private companies, not actual US families.

Another little-discussed provision in the bill is the funding for the Golden Dome, an anti-missile system named for and modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome. The bill set aside $25 billion for its development, along with another $128 billion for military initiatives like expanding the naval fleet and nuclear arsenal.

Media, though, did little more than report these numbers, when they weren’t ignored entirely (CBS, 7/4/25; CNN, 7/4/25). The New York Times (7/1/25) characterized these measures to strengthen the military/industrial complex as “the least controversial in the legislative package”; they were “meant to entice Republicans to vote for it.” In utterly failing to challenge $153 billion in spending on a military that is currently being deployed to bomb other countries in wars of aggression and to suppress protests against authoritarianism at home, the media manufacture consent for militarism as a necessity and an inevitability.

Ignorance a journalistic fail

The Washington Post’s headline and article (7/3/25) perfectly exemplified the paradox with today’s media—calling out how “The Big Problem With Trump’s Bill [Is That] Many Voters Don’t Know What’s in It.” Yet it tosses in an unsubstantial explanation about how “it deals with tax policy, border security, restocking the military/industrial complex, slashing spending on health and food programs for the poor—as well as many, many other programs.”

By reducing sweeping legislative consequences to vague generalities and by positioning ignorance as a voter issue rather than journalistic failure, media outlets maintain a veneer of critique while sidestepping accountability.

Featured image: PBS  depiction (7/30/25) of President Donald Trump signing the reconciliation bill. (photo: Alex Brandon/Pool via Reuters.)

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Shirlynn Chan.

This recent trend is most conspicuous in an ongoing regulatory war being waged against the Internet and the corporate citizens that inhabit it. Terrified that Australia’s tender children will suffer ruination at the hands of online platforms, the entire population of the country will be subjected to age verification checks. Preparations are already underway in the country to impose a social media ban for users under the age of 16, ostensibly to protect the mental health and wellbeing of children. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was passed in November last year to amend the Online Safety Act 2021, requiring “age-restricted social media platforms” to observe a “minimum age obligation” to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from having accounts. It also vests that ghastly office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Information Commissioner with powers to seek information regarding relevant compliance by the platforms, along with the power to issue and publish notices of non-compliance.

While the press were falling over to note the significance of such changes, little debate has accompanied the last month’s registration of a new industry code by the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. In fact, Inman Grant is proving most busy, having already registered three such codes, with a further six to be registered by the end of this year. All serve to target the behaviour of internet service companies in Australia. Not all have been subject to parliamentary debate, let alone broader public consultation.

Inman Grant has been less than forthcoming about the implications of these codes, most notably on the issue of mandatory age-assurance limits. That said, some crumbs have been left for those paying attention to her innate obsession with hiving off the Internet from Australian users. In her address to the National Press Club in Canberra on June 24, she did give some clue about where the country is heading: “Today, I am […] announcing that through the Online Safety Act’s codes and standards framework, we will be moving to register three industry-prepared codes designed to limit children’s access to high impact, harmful material like pornography, violent content, themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating.”  (Is there no limit to this commissar’s fears?) Under such codes, companies would “agree to apply safety measures up and down the technology stack – including age assurance protections.”

With messianic fervour, Inman Grant explained that the codes would “serve as a bulwark and operate in concern with the new social media age limits, distributing more responsibility and accountability across eight sectors of the tech industry.” These would also not be limited in scope, applicable to enterprise hosting services, internet carriage services, and various “access providers and search engines. I have concluded that each of these codes provides appropriate community safeguards.”

From December 27, such technology giants as Google and Microsoft will have to use age-assurance technology for account holders when they sign in and “apply tools and/or settings, like ‘safe search’ functionality, at the highest safety setting by default for an account holders its age verification systems indicate is likely to be an Australian child, designed to protect and prevent Australian children from accessing or being exposed to online pornography and high impact violence material in search results.” This is pursuant to Schedule 3 – Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code (Class 1C and Class 2 Material).

How this will be undertaken has not, as yet, been clarified by Google or Microsoft. The companies have, however, been in the business of trialling a number of technologies. These include Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) cryptography, which permits people to prove that an aspect of themselves is true without surrendering any other data; using large language models (LLMs) to discern an account holder’s age based on browsing history; or the use of selfie verification and government ID tools.

Specialists in the field of information technology have been left baffled and worried. “I have not seen anything like this anywhere else in the world,” remarks IT researcher Lisa Given. This had “kind of popped out, seemingly out of the blue.” Digital Rights Watch chair, Lizzie O’Shea, is of the view that “the public deserves more of a say in how to balance these important human rights issues” while Justin Warren, founder of the tech analysis company PivotNine, sees it as “a massive overreaction after years of police inaction to curtail the power of a handful of large foreign technology companies.”

Then comes the issue of efficacy. Using the safety of children as a reason for censoring content and restricting technology is a government favourite. Whether the regulations actually protect children is quite another matter. John Pane, chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), was less than impressed by the results from a recent age-assurance technology trial conducted to examine the effect of the teen social media ban. And all of this cannot ignore the innovative guile of young users, ever ready to circumvent any imposed restrictions.

Inman Grant, in her attempts to limit the use of the Internet and infantilise the population, sees these age-restricting measures as “building a culture of online safety, using multiple interventions – just as we have done so successfully on our beaches.” This nonsensical analogy excludes the central theme of her policies, common to all censors in history: The people are not to be trusted, and paternalistic governors and regulators know better.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

In almost all parts of the country, the amount people pay for electricity on their power bills — the retail price — has risen faster than the rate of inflation since 2022, and that will likely continue through 2026, according to the Energy Information Administration, or EIA.

Just about everything costs more these days, but electricity prices are especially concerning because they’re an input for so much of the economy — powering factories, data centers, and a growing fleet of electric vehicles. It’s not just the big industries; we all feel the pinch firsthand when we pay our utility bills. According to PowerLines, a nonprofit working to reduce electricity prices, about 80 million Americans have to sacrifice other basic expenses like food or medicine to afford to keep the lights on. And it’s about to get even worse: Utilities in markets across the country have asked regulators for almost $29 billion in electricity rate increases for consumers for the first half of the year.

Why are prices rising so much all of a sudden? Right now, there are the usual factors driving the rise in electricity rates: high demand, not enough supply, and inflation. But there are problems that have been building up for decades as well, and now the bills are due: Aging and inadequate infrastructure needs replacement, while outdated business models and regulations are slowing the deployment of urgently needed upgrades.

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to bring energy prices down by increasing fossil fuel extraction. “My goal will be to cut your energy costs in half within 12 months after taking office,” Trump said last August in a speech in Michigan.

But electricity prices are still going up, and Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is likely to raise prices further. Without better management and investment, the result will be more expensive and less reliable power for most Americans.

The variables baked into your power bill, explained

There are several key factors that shape how much you pay for electricity.

There’s the cost of building, operating, and maintaining power plants. Higher interest rates, inflation, tariffs, and longer interconnection queues — power generators waiting for approval to connect to the grid — are making the process of building a new electricity generator slower and more expensive. PJM, the largest power market in the U.S., said this week that soaring demand for electricity and delays in building new generators will raise power bills 1 percent  to 5 percent for customers in its service area across 13 states and the District of Columbia.

Then there’s the fuel itself, whether that’s coal, oil, natural gas, or uranium. For renewables, the cost of wind, water, and sunlight are close to zero, but intermittent generators need conventional power plants or energy storage systems to back them up. Still, wind and solar power have been some of the cheapest sources of electricity in recent years, forming the dominant share of new power generation connecting to the grid.

That electricity then has to be routed from power plants over transmission lines that can span hundreds of miles and into distribution networks that send electrons into homes, offices, stores, and factories.

Read Next

Trump calls program to help low-income Americans pay their energy bills ‘unnecessary’

Naveena Sadasivam

Then you have to think about demand, over the course of hours, days, months, and years. Some utilities offer time-of-use billing that raises rates during peak demand periods like hot summer afternoons and lowers them in evenings. Cooling needs are a big reason why overall electricity use tends to be higher in summer months than in the winter. And for the first time in a decade, the U.S. is experiencing a sustained increase in electricity use driven in part by a rapid build-out of power-hungry data centers, more EVs, more electric appliances, and more air conditioning to stay cool in hotter summers.

More users for the same amount of electricity means higher prices. The Trump administration’s rollback of key incentives for renewables and slowdown of approvals for new projects is likely to slow the rate of new generation coming online.

And the process of bridging electricity supplies with demand is becoming a bottleneck, thus comprising a larger share of the overall bill. “If you actually look at the cost breakdowns of what’s significantly increasing, it’s really the grid,” said Charles Hua, founder and executive director of PowerLines. “It is the poles and wires that make up our electric infrastructure that’s increasing in cost particularly rapidly.”

According to the EIA, just under two-thirds of the average price of electricity is due to generation costs, with the remainder coming from transmission and distribution. However, energy utilities are now putting more than half of their expenditures into transmission and distribution through the end of the decade. “It used to be the case maybe a decade ago where generation was the largest share of utility investments, and therefore customer bills,” Hua said. “But it has now been inverted where really it’s the grid expense that is rising and doesn’t show any signs of relief.”

There are several reasons for this. One is that the existing power grid is old, and many components like conductors and switchgear are reaching the ends of their service lives. Replacing 1960s hardware at 2025 prices raises operating costs even for the same level of service. But the grid now needs to provide higher levels of service as populations grow and as technologies like intermittent renewables and energy storage proliferate.

Power outages driven by extreme weather are becoming more frequent and longer, but hardening the grid against disasters like floods and fires is expensive too. Putting a power line underground can add up to double or more the price of stringing conductors along utility poles, which is why power companies have been slow to make the change, even in disaster-prone regions.

While utilities are pouring money into distribution networks, they are having a harder time building new long-distance transmission lines as they run into permitting and regulatory delays. The U.S. used to build an average of 2,000 miles of high-voltage transmission per year between 2012 and 2016. The construction rate dropped to 700 miles per year between 2017 and 2021, and dipped to just 55 miles in 2023. There were 125 miles of new high-voltage transmission installed in the first half of 2024, but it was all for one project. The Department of Energy this week canceled a loan guarantee for the Grain Belt Express, a transmission project that would stretch 800 miles across four states.

There are also shortages of critical parts of the grid like transformers, while tariffs on materials like aluminum and steel are pushing up construction expenses.

One underrated driver of higher prices is the lack of coordination between utilities, grid operators, and states on how to spend their money. In utility jargon, this process is called Integrated Distribution System Planning, where everyone with a stake in the energy network puts together a comprehensive plan of what to buy, where to build it, and who should pay — but only a few states like Illinois, Maine, and New Hampshire have such a system set up.

“That’s sort of a no-brainer,” Hua said. “Anybody should understand the need to plan ahead, especially if you’re talking about something that has such high economic implications, but that’s not what we’re doing.”

So while prices are rising, there’s no easy way around the fact that the grid is overdue for a lot of necessary, expensive upgrades. For millions of Americans, that means it’s going to get more expensive to stay cool, charged up, and connected.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why your energy bill is suddenly so much more expensive on Jul 27, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Umair Irfan, Vox.

With support from over 175 groups, this comprehensive legislative proposal would close tax loopholes and eliminate corporate handouts to the oil, gas, and coal industry by:
Eliminating all of the fossil fuel giveaways in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill’ including a $1.5 billion last-minute giveaway for coal used to produce steel and restoring a fee for methane pollution.

• Abolishing dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies throughout the federal tax code that benefit oil, gas, and coal special interests.
• Updating below-market royalty rates for oil and gas production on federal lands, recouping royalties from offshore drilling in public waters, and ensuring competitive bidding and leasing practices for coal development on federal lands.
• Prohibiting taxpayer-funded fossil fuel research and development.
• Ending federal support for international oil, gas, and coal projects and supporting the global community’s fight to move away from dirty fossil fuels.

You can read the bill text and section by section here.

Quotes:

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders said: “Donald Trump has sold out the young people of America and future generations. Big Oil spent $450 million to elected Donald Trump and Republicans during the last election cycle. In return, the president has directed the full regulatory, legal and financial weight of the federal government toward helping his fossil fuel executive friends get rich at the expense of a healthy and habitable planet for our kids and grandkids. The fossil fuel industry, with the support of Trump, is more concerned about their short-term profits than the wellbeing of the planet. No more polluter welfare for an industry that is making billions every year destroying the planet.”

U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar said: “We are done letting fossil fuel executives write the rules while our communities pay the price. For decades, Big Oil has raked in billions in taxpayer handouts while destabilizing our climate. The End Polluter Welfare Act will finally hold polluters accountable and eliminate these harmful subsidies once and for all. I'm proud to reintroduce this legislation with Senator Sanders because our planet can’t wait, and neither can we.”

Meghan Pazik, senior policy advocate with Public Citizen’s Climate Program said: “For too long, billions of American tax dollars have propped up the corrupt and polluting fossil fuel industry while ordinary people struggle with rising energy bills and climate disasters. The End Polluter Welfare Act would rein in the corporate power of fossil fuel interests. Ending these subsidies isn’t just good policy and responsible government tax reform—it’s climate justice. There is no place for the government to enrich an unchecked industry causing unfathomable environmental and health damage in our backyards and around the world.”

Lukas Shankar-Ross, deputy director for climate and energy justice at Friends of the Earth said: “Trump and the GOP just sent polluters another $20 billion in corporate welfare. Ending fossil fuel subsidies once and for all has never been more urgent.”

Mahyar Sorour, director of Beyond Fossil Fuels Policy at Sierra Club: “Fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their product harms the climate, but have made obscene profits while communities are left to clean up the mess. Taxpayers can not afford to write a blank check to Big Oil and Gas companies through subsidies, corporate giveaways, and sweetheart deals. We must end the billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil and gas industry.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The nature of that misconduct lay in foreign students supposedly engaged in any number of scurrilous acts vaguely described as “known illegal activity”, “known dangerous and violent activity”, “known threats to other students or university personnel”, “known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel”, and whether those activities “occurred on campus”. Harvard had failed to provide any useful data on the “disciplinary records” of such students. (The information on the three miscreants supplied in the lists was not just inadequate but useless.) Just to make Trump foam further, Harvard had “also developed extensive entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries” and flouted “the civil rights of students and faculty, triggering multiple Federal investigations.” While the proclamation avoids explicitly mentioning it, the throbbing subtext here is the caricatured concern that the university has not adequately addressed antisemitism.

In various splenetic statements, the President has made no secret of his views on the university. On Truth Social, we find him berating the institution for “hiring almost all woke, Radical left, idiots and ‘birdbrains’”. The university was also hectored through April by the multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism to alter its governance processes, admissions and hiring policies, and academic programs. The administration demanded via an April 11 letter to Harvard’s president that a third party be hired to “audit” the views of students, faculty, and staff to satisfy government notions of “viewpoint diversity” that would also include the expulsion of specific students and the review of “faculty hires”.  Extraordinarily, the administration demanded that the audit “proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate.” Harvard’s refusal to accede to such demands led to a freezing of over $2.2 billion in federal funding.

On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security cancelled Harvard’s means of enrolling students through the SEVP program or employing J-1 non-immigrants under the Exchange Visitor Program (EVP). In its May 23 filing in the US District Court for Massachusetts, the university contended that such actions violated the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.  They were “in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students.”

The June 4 proclamation proved to be another sledgehammer wielded by the executive, barring non-immigrants from pursuing “a course of study at Harvard University [under the SEVP program] or to participate in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University”.  The university successfully secured a temporary restraining order on June 5, preventing the revocation from taking effect. On June 23, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs granted the university’s request for a preliminary injunction, extending the temporary order. “The case,” wrote Burroughs, “is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism.” The “misplaced efforts” by the government “to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration’s own views, threaten these rights.”

On July 21, the parties again clashed, this time over the issue of restoring the funds frozen in federal research grants. Burroughs made no immediate decision on the matter but barely hid her scepticism about the government’s actions and inclinations. “If you can make decisions for reasons oriented around free speech,” she put to Justice Department senior attorney Michael Velchik, “the consequences are staggering to me.”

Harvard’s attorney Steve Lehotsky also argued that the demands of the government impaired the university’s autonomy, going beyond even that of dealing with antisemitism. These included audits of viewpoint diversity among faculty and students, as well as changes to the admissions and hiring processes. The demands constituted “a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.” The issue of withdrawing funding was also argued to be a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires an investigation, the holding of a hearing, and the release of findings before such a decision is made.

Velchik, very much in the mood for sophistry, made less of the antisemitism issue than that of contractual interpretation. Under government contracts with institutions, language always existed that permitted the withdrawal of funding at any time.

If Trump were serious about the MAGA brand, then attacking universities, notably those like Harvard, must count as an act of monumental self-harm. Such institutions are joined hip and all to the military-industrial-education complex, keeping America gorged with its complement of engineers, scientists, and imperial propagandists.

Harvard has also shown itself willing to march to the music of the Israel lobby, which happily provides funds for the institution. The extent of that influence was made clear by a decision by the university’s own Kennedy School to deny a fellowship to Kenneth Roth, the former head of Human Rights Watch, in early 2023. While the decision by the morally flabby dean, Douglas Elmendorf, was reversed following much outrage, the School had displayed its gaudy colours. Little wonder, given the presence of the Wexner Foundation, which is responsible for sponsoring the attendance of top-ranked Israeli generals and national security experts in a Master’s Degree program in public administration at the university.

Trump is partially right to claim that universities and their governance structures are in need of a severe dusting down. But he has shown no interest in identifying the actual problem. How wonderful, yet unlikely, it would be to see actual reforms in university policies that demilitarize funding in favor of an enlightened curriculum that abhors war.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The move comes as Roundup manufacturer Bayer pushes to pass the Cancer Gag Act, which would shield pesticide corporations from health related lawsuits. The Cancer Gag Act was introduced in twelve states this year to robust opposition; it failed in nine and passed in two (the bill is still pending in North Carolina). Reintroduction of the federal Cancer Gag Act, introduced last year as the Agricultural Uniformity Labeling Act, is expected this year.

Food & Water Watch Senior Food Policy Analyst Rebecca Wolf issued the following statement:

“Today’s despicable vote to further defund the government will undermine public health. There is hardly a family in America untouched by cancer, a disease repeatedly linked to industrial agriculture. Today’s vote gives Big Ag their cake and lets them eat it too — enabling pesticide corporations to profit off dangerous chemicals and preventing the public from being any the wiser about the risks to their own health.

“The Senate must reject this bill out of hand; commit to funding the federal government without hamstringing the EPA; and stand firmly against efforts to pass the Cancer Gag Act in any way, shape or form.”

The appropriations bill language is one of several ways Cancer Gag Act supporters are seeking to pass pesticide immunity language through Congress. Bayer’s push to limit liability comes as the corporation has spent over $11 billion settling more than 100,000 cancer lawsuits related to their Roundup product, whose active ingredient glyphosate was determined to be "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. Pesticide residue has been widely detected in Americans, with some studies finding residue in 100% of U.S. urine samples.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The District’s 2020 lawsuit against Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell argues that the companies violated D.C.’s consumer protection law by engaging in misleading acts and practices around the marketing, promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products. In April, a court rejected the Big Oil companies’ motions to dismiss the case, bringing it one step closer to trial.

In June, 16 Republican attorneys general asked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to help erect a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies against climate lawsuits. Among its tactics, the attorneys general recommended that the federal government “Restrict federal funding for ‘States that seek to impose liability on, or require payment from, energy companies for climate change[.]’”

Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“The fossil fuel industry and its allies are trying to kill any and all lawsuits that would hold Big Oil companies accountable for their climate lies and the damage they’ve caused — and this assault on D.C.’s ability to enforce its own consumer protection laws is part of their playbook. No industry should be above the law, especially one as powerful and harmful as Big Oil. Members of Congress must reject this underhanded attempt to help Big Oil escape accountability and protect access to the courts for every community.”

Background on U.S. Climate Accountability Lawsuits Against Big Oil:

Ten U.S. states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai`i, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont — and the District of Columbia, along with dozens of city, county, and tribal governments in California, Colorado, Hawai`i, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change. These cases collectively represent more than 1 in 4 people living in the United States. Last year, the attorney general of Michigan announced plans to take fossil fuel companies to court.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process — this time for foreign investment in New Zealand.

But it has had almost no public scrutiny.

If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close tomorrow.

• READ MORE: Other NZ foreign investment reports

A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 “to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely”.

There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments — especially in forestry.

A three-step test
Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator — the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ — 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand’s “national interest”.

If they don’t perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved.

Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, would require a “national interest” assessment under stage two.

These would be assessed against a “ministerial letter” that sets out the government’s general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals.

Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act’s new “purpose” to increase economic opportunity through “timely consent” of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether.

If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is “contrary to the national interest”, the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors.

Inadequate regulatory process
Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury’s 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions.

Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should “manage a wide range of risks” and “that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets”.

Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses.

The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported “notable limitations” on the bill’s quality assurance process.

A fuller review was “infeasible” because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way.

The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited.

Time constraints meant “users and key stakeholders have not been consulted”, according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations.

There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement.

No ‘benefit to NZ’ test
While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting.

Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land.

Repeal of the “special forestry test” — which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions — means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked.

There would no longer be a need to consider investors’ track records or apply a “benefit to New Zealand” test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash.

The official documents don’t explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First’s support.

It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore.

Locked in forever?
Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand’s free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand’s investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations.

A “ratchet clause” would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back.

However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question.

As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk.

But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.

Dr Jane Kelsey is emeritus professor of law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

• Clock ticking for Trump bill clawing back funds for foreign aid and public media;
• House hearing on campus antisemitism targets UC Berkeley, Dem Ilhan Omar compares hearing to McCarthy witch-hunts;
• UN reports child nutrition in Gaza doubled under Israeli restrictions;
• UN says civilians in Ukraine coming under fire in record numbers as Russian strikes surge;
• Tariff-driven inflation begins to show in rising costs for furniture, clothing, large appliances

The post Deadline looms for bill clawing back funds for foreign aid and public media; UC Berkeley chancellor defends free speech at House antisemitism hearing – July 15, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Late last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a species status assessment for grizzly bears finding that decreased conservation measures for grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would threaten their viability, resiliency, and ultimately recovery. The service thus concluded that the best available science requires the GYE population to remain listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Since the species status assessment was published, the Trump administration has proposed rolling back habitat protections under the Endangered Species Act; fast-tracking mining and logging, including in grizzly bear habitat; and eliminating protections for roadless areas that form the secure core habitat for grizzly bears.

Rep. Hageman’s bill seeks to override both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Fish and Wildlife Service by turning grizzly management over to Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho–exposing grizzly bears to greater threats.

“Efforts to delist grizzly bears by congressional action are attempts to ignore what is required by the Endangered Species Act to achieve grizzly recovery,” said Christopher Servheen, Ph.D., retired USFWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator. “The current administration and Congress are working to defund grizzly bear science and monitoring, dramatically reduce funding for federal land management agencies in grizzly range, increase timber harvest and road building in grizzly habitat, and weaken or eliminate the fundamental laws that grizzly recovery depends on like the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act and the USFS Roadless Rule. At the same time, recreation pressure on public lands and private land development are accelerating rapidly in grizzly habitat putting even more stress on grizzlies. Congressional delisting while the cumulative impacts of these actions are ongoing is irresponsible and will result in immediate declines in grizzly numbers and range.”

“This bill completely disregards both federal courts and a science-based agency decision to forcefully turn over management of Greater Yellowstone grizzly bears to the states,” said Jenny Harbine, managing attorney for Earthjustice’s Northern Rockies Office. “Barring judicial review and handing over the management keys to state agencies that ignore science would increase the already-high number of grizzly bear deaths and would be devastating to bears’ long-term recovery. Safeguards must remain in place until science shows grizzly bears are fully recovered, and until states have protections in place to ensure grizzly bears will thrive for future generations.”

Earthjustice and over 50 groups signed onto a letter opposing the bill.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species,” said Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife. “The bill is loaded with riders that attack the Endangered Species Act and would put some of America’s most iconic species, including the grizzly bear and wolverine, at serious risk of extinction. By blocking protections for public lands while also providing short-sighted lease sales for the benefit of oil and gas corporations, the bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on.”

Of its most egregious provisions, the bill slashes funding for listing threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act by two-thirds and includes poison-pill riders that would:

• Block all funding for listing the greater sage-grouse and for implementing the new range wide plans to conserve the species.
• Delist the gray wolf.
• Delist the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population.
• Block funding for protecting the wolverine.
• Block funding for protecting the northern long-eared bat.
• Block funding for protecting the lesser prairie-chicken.
• Block funding for protecting captive fish listed under the ESA, like sturgeon.
• Block funding for reintroducing grizzly bears to the North Cascades Ecosystem.
• Block funding for reintroducing grizzly bears to the Bitterroot ecosystem.
• Block Biden-era ESA rules.
• Block funding for the protection of seven freshwater mussel species in Texas.
• Reissue a harmful rule overturning legal precedent set by the “Cottonwood” court case.
• Block the BLM Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, which puts conserving wildlife and ecosystems on par with other uses of public lands.
• Block funding for reintroduction of American bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
• Block funding for the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge land protection plan.
• Promote continued expansion of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
• Mandate issuing at least four onshore oil and gas lease sales in any state where there is land available, including Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Nevada and Alaska.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The post Bill Moyers’ Legacy, Censored News, and Civil Liberties at Risk appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

Having figured out how to parlay presidential authority in foreign affairs in order to sidestep the Constitution, President Trump is using his immigration enforcement powers to lock up—and lock down—the nation.

Under the guise of national security and public safety, the Trump administration is engineering the largest federal expansion of incarceration and detention powers in U.S. history.

At the center of this campaign is Alligator Alcatraz, a federal detention facility built in the Florida Everglades and hailed by the White House as a model for the future of federal incarceration. But this is more than a new prison—it is the architectural symbol of a carceral state being quietly constructed in plain sight.

With over $170 billion allocated through Trump’s megabill, we are witnessing the creation of a vast, permanent enforcement infrastructure aimed at turning the American police state into a prison state.

The scope of this expansion is staggering.

The bill allocates $45 billion just to expand immigrant detention—making ICE the best-funded federal law enforcement agency in American history.

Yet be warned: what begins with ICE rarely ends with ICE.

Trump’s initial promise to crack down on “violent illegal criminals” has evolved into a sweeping mandate: a mass, quota-driven roundup campaign that detains anyone the administration deems a threat, regardless of legal status and at significant expense to the American taxpayer.

Tellingly, the vast majority of those being detained have no criminal record. And like so many of the Trump administration’s grandiose plans, the math doesn’t add up.

Just as Trump’s tariffs have failed to revive American manufacturing and instead raised consumer prices, this detention-state spending spree will cost taxpayers far more than it saves. It’s estimated that undocumented workers contribute an estimated $96 billion in federal, state and local taxes each year, and billions more in Social Security and Medicare taxes that they can never claim.

Making matters worse, many of these detained immigrants are then exploited as a pool of cheap labor inside the very facilities where they’re held.

The implications for Trump’s detention empire are chilling.

At a time when the administration is promising mass deportations to appease anti-immigrant hardliners, it is simultaneously constructing a parallel economy in which detained migrants can be pressed into near-free labor to satisfy the needs of industries that depend on migrant work.

What Trump is building isn’t just a prison state—it’s a forced labor regime, where confinement and exploitation go hand in hand. And it’s a high price to pay for a policy that creates more problems than it solves.

As the enforcement dragnet expands, so does the definition of who qualifies as an enemy of the state—including legal U.S. residents arrested for their political views.

The Trump administration is now pushing to review and revoke the citizenship of Americans it deems national security risks—targeting them for arrest, detention, and deportation.

Unfortunately, the government’s definition of “national security threat” is so broad, vague, and unconstitutional that it could encompass anyone engaged in peaceful, nonviolent, constitutionally protected activities—including criticism of government policy or the policies of allied governments like Israel.

In Trump’s prison state, no one is beyond the government’s reach.

Critics of the post-9/11 security state—left, right, and libertarian alike—have long warned that the powers granted to fight terrorism and control immigration would eventually be turned inward, used against dissidents, protestors, and ordinary citizens.

That moment has arrived.

Yet Trump’s most vocal supporters remain dangerously convinced they have nothing to fear from this expanding enforcement machine. But history—and the Constitution—say otherwise.

Our founders understood that unchecked government power, particularly in the name of public safety, poses the most significant threat to liberty. That’s why they enshrined rights like due process, trial by jury, and protection from unreasonable searches.

Those safeguards are now being hollowed out.

Trump’s detention expansion—like the mass surveillance programs before it—is not about making America safe. It’s about following the blueprints for authoritarian control in order to lock down the country.

The government’s targets may be the vulnerable today—but the infrastructure is built for everyone: Trump’s administration is laying the legal groundwork for indefinite detention of citizens and noncitizens alike.

This is not just about building prisons. It’s about dismantling the constitutional protections that make us free.

A nation cannot remain free while operating as a security state. And a government that treats liberty as a threat will soon treat the people as enemies.

This is not a partisan warning. It is a constitutional one.

We are dangerously close to losing the constitutional guardrails that keep power in check.

The very people who once warned against Big Government—the ones who decried the surveillance state, the IRS, and federal overreach—are now cheering for the most dangerous part of it: the unchecked power to surveil, detain, and disappear citizens without full due process.

Limited government, not mass incarceration, is the backbone of liberty.

The Founders warned that the greatest threat to liberty was not a foreign enemy, but domestic power left unchecked. That’s exactly what we’re up against now. A nation cannot claim to defend freedom while building a surveillance-fueled, prison-industrial empire.

Trump’s prison state is not a defense of America. It’s the destruction of everything America was meant to defend.

We can pursue justice without abandoning the Constitution. We can secure our borders and our communities without turning every American into a suspect and building a federal gulag.

But we must act now.

History has shown us where this road leads. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, once the machinery of tyranny is built, it rarely stays idle.

If we continue down this path, cheering on bigger prisons, broader police powers, and unchecked executive authority—if we fail to reject the dangerous notion that more prisons, more power, and fewer rights will somehow make us safer—if we fail to restore the foundational limits that protect us from government overreach before those limits are gone for good—we may wake up to find that the prisons and concentration camps the police state is building won’t just hold others.

One day, they may hold us all.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

There is no question that cybersecurity and protecting the privacy of Americans’ health care records are important issues that we need to deal with.

But, Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. That is not the issue that is right now on the minds of the American people. What people are worried about is the catastrophic impact that the reconciliation bill that was passed last week will have on the health and well-being of the American people. And that is the issue that I'm going to be focused on today.

That legislation, passed by one vote here in the Senate, will be making the largest cut to Medicaid in American history to pay for the largest tax break for billionaires in American history.

At a time when our current health care system is broken, dysfunctional and cruel — 85 million today are uninsured or underinsured. This bill will make a horrible situation even worse.

This legislation will cut Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act by more than $1.1 trillion.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill, along with the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits, will cause 17 million people to lose their health insurance.

Researchers at the Yale School of Public Health and health care economists at the University of Pennsylvania have found that these health care policies would cause over 50,000 people in our country to die unnecessarily every year. That's what happens when you can't get to a doctor.

I am delighted that one of the lead researchers of this report, Dr. Alison Galvani, is here with us today to talk more about that study.

Mr. Chairman: it is not rocket science. You're a doctor, you know this. If people don’t have access to health care, if they can’t get to a doctor when they need to, people will suffer and tens of thousands will die. It happens today and it will only get worse.

Make no mistake about it: This bill is a death sentence for working-class and low-income Americans.

Further, as a result of this bill, more than 300 rural hospitals are now at risk of closing down altogether or substantially reducing their services. That is not my estimate. That’s what the Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina recently estimated.

And we are already beginning to see the devastating impact this bill will have on rural America: The Curtis Medical Center in Southwest Nebraska has already announced that it will be shutting down because it cannot withstand the cuts to Medicaid contained in this bill.

It’s not just rural hospitals that are now in crisis as a result of this legislation.

According to a recent survey from the American Health Care Association, as a result of this bill, 27% of nursing homes have indicated that they will be forced to close their doors and 58% will have to reduce staff. And it’s not just nursing homes.

Health care researchers at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University have found that this bill will be a disaster for community health centers.

They have estimated that as a result of the passage of this bill, over 40% of community health center sites will shut down. Today, there are over 15,000 community health center clinics throughout America. This could result in the shutting down of some 9,000 of them.

And it's not just community health centers, it's not just nursing homes and it's not just individuals.

This legislation will substantially increase the uninsured rate in every state in this country.

As a result of this bill, the uninsured rate in my own state of Vermont would go up from 3.3% to 6%.

In Louisiana, the Chairman's state, the uninsured rate will go up from 6.7% to 12.4%.

In Florida, the uninsured rate will go up from 10.4% to 18.8%.

In Texas, the second largest state in this country, the uninsured rate will go up to 20% — in the United States, in the richest country in the history of the world.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that needs to be explained to the American people, and I look forward to discussing it with all of our panelists.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Perhaps most noticeably, the legislation provides for over $3 trillion in tax cuts that disproportionately help the wealthy and their corporations. This largesse is facilitated by slashing over $1.4 trillion in healthcare and food assistance for low-income Americans and increasing the national debt by $3.3 trillion. Estimates reveal that at least 16 million Americans will lose health care coverage and 7 million people (including 2 million children) will lose food aid or have their food aid cut significantly. Meanwhile, according to the Yale Budget Lab, the nation’s top 0.1 percent―people with an annual income over $3.3 million―will receive tax cuts of $103,500 on average. Condemning the legislation, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared simply that it “takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.”

Other measures in the legislation supporting the wealthy and their businesses at public expense include financial subsidies for coal, oil, and gas companies, the opening of opportunities for oil and gas corporations to drill on public lands (including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve), and the reduction of royalty fees for such fossil fuel drilling.

Of course, this kind of class legislation and the greed that inspires it are nothing new. Throughout history, some people have amassed great fortunes, often with the assistance of governments and other powerful entities. Kings, princes, and their courtiers provided themselves with castles, vast landed estates, and other perquisites of wealth, while millions of their subjects lived in miserable huts and dug a few potatoes out of their fields in a desperate effort to survive. In later years, this situation was replicated to some extent as business titans garnered great wealth by exploiting workers in factories, mines, and fields.

Although this pattern of economic inequality was viewed as immoral by every great religious and ethical system, it did have a brutal logic to it. After all, in these situations of overall scarcity, some people would be poor and some would surely die. By contrast, growing rich helped guarantee survival for oneself and one’s family.

But with the advent of the industrial revolution, these tragic circumstances began to dissipate, for human beings increasingly possessed the knowledge, skills, and resources that had the potential to produce decent lives for everyone. Indeed, as science, technology, and factory output advanced and produced unprecedented abundance, there was no longer any morally justifiable basis for the existence of hunger, homelessness, and mass sickness.

In these altered conditions, avarice has become increasingly irrational―the driving force behind irrational men like Donald Trump and his billionaire friends, who, even as millions of people live and die in poverty and misery, seek to wallow in great wealth.

Gandhi put it concisely when he declared, decades ago: “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”

Fortunately, over the course of human history, humane thinkers, social movements, and political parties have worked to rein in untrammeled greed in the interest of a better life for all humanity. In recent centuries, they have recognized the fact that sharing the wealth is not only a moral stance, but a feasible one.

Let’s hope, then, that despite this brazen and regressive move by the Trump administration to bolster economic privilege at the expense of human needs, the forces favoring human equality and compassion will ultimately prevail.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Lawrence S. Wittner.

Perhaps most noticeably, the legislation provides for over $3 trillion in tax cuts that disproportionately help the wealthy and their corporations. This largesse is facilitated by slashing over $1.4 trillion in healthcare and food assistance for low-income Americans and increasing the national debt by $3.3 trillion. Estimates reveal that at least 16 million Americans will lose health care coverage and 7 million people (including 2 million children) will lose food aid or have their food aid cut significantly. Meanwhile, according to the Yale Budget Lab, the nation’s top 0.1 percent―people with an annual income over $3.3 million―will receive tax cuts of $103,500 on average. Condemning the legislation, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared simply that it “takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.”

Other measures in the legislation supporting the wealthy and their businesses at public expense include financial subsidies for coal, oil, and gas companies, the opening of opportunities for oil and gas corporations to drill on public lands (including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve), and the reduction of royalty fees for such fossil fuel drilling.

Of course, this kind of class legislation and the greed that inspires it are nothing new. Throughout history, some people have amassed great fortunes, often with the assistance of governments and other powerful entities. Kings, princes, and their courtiers provided themselves with castles, vast landed estates, and other perquisites of wealth, while millions of their subjects lived in miserable huts and dug a few potatoes out of their fields in a desperate effort to survive. In later years, this situation was replicated to some extent as business titans garnered great wealth by exploiting workers in factories, mines, and fields.

Although this pattern of economic inequality was viewed as immoral by every great religious and ethical system, it did have a brutal logic to it. After all, in these situations of overall scarcity, some people would be poor and some would surely die. By contrast, growing rich helped guarantee survival for oneself and one’s family.

But with the advent of the industrial revolution, these tragic circumstances began to dissipate, for human beings increasingly possessed the knowledge, skills, and resources that had the potential to produce decent lives for everyone. Indeed, as science, technology, and factory output advanced and produced unprecedented abundance, there was no longer any morally justifiable basis for the existence of hunger, homelessness, and mass sickness.

In these altered conditions, avarice has become increasingly irrational―the driving force behind irrational men like Donald Trump and his billionaire friends, who, even as millions of people live and die in poverty and misery, seek to wallow in great wealth.

Gandhi put it concisely when he declared, decades ago: “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”

Fortunately, over the course of human history, humane thinkers, social movements, and political parties have worked to rein in untrammeled greed in the interest of a better life for all humanity. In recent centuries, they have recognized the fact that sharing the wealth is not only a moral stance, but a feasible one.

Let’s hope, then, that despite this brazen and regressive move by the Trump administration to bolster economic privilege at the expense of human needs, the forces favoring human equality and compassion will ultimately prevail.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Lawrence S. Wittner.

People on Guam are “disappointed” and “heartbroken” that radiation exposure compensation is not being extended to them, says the president of the Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors (PARS), Robert Celestial.

He said they were disappointed for many reasons.

“Congress seems to not understand that we are no different than any state,” he told RNZ Pacific.

• READ MORE: Other nuclear victims reports

“We are human beings, we are affected in the same way they are. We are suffering the same way, we are greatly disappointed, heartbroken,” Celestial said.

The extension to the United States Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was part of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” passed by Congress on Friday (Thursday, Washington time).

Downwind compensation eligibility would extend to the entire states of Utah, Idaho and New Mexico, but Guam – which was included in an earlier version of the bill – was excluded.

All claimants are eligible for US$100,000.

Attempt at amendment
Guam Republican congressman James Moylan attempted to make an amendment to include Guam before the bill reached the House floor earlier in the week.

“Guam has become a forgotten casualty of the nuclear era,” Moylan told the House Rules Committee.

“Federal agencies have confirmed that our island received measurable radiation exposure as a result of US nuclear testing in the Pacific and yet, despite this clear evidence, Guam remains excluded from RECA, a program that was designed specifically to address the harm caused by our nation’s own policies.

“Guam is not asking for special treatment we are asking to be treated with dignity equal to the same recognition afforded to other downwind communities across our nation.”

Moylan said his constituents are dying from cancers linked to radiation exposure.

From 1946 to 1962, 67 nuclear bombs were detonated in the Marshall Islands, just under 2000 kilometres from Guam.

New Mexico Democratic congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández supported Moylan, who said it was “sad Guam and other communities were not included”.

Colorado, Montana excluded
The RECA extension also excluded Colorado and Montana; Idaho was also for a time but this was amended.

Celestial said he had heard different rumours about why Guam was not included but nothing concrete.

“A lot of excuses were saying that it’s going to cost too much. You know, Guam is going to put a burden on finances.”

But Celestial said the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for Guam to be included was US$560 million while Idaho was $1.4 billion.

“[Money] can’t be the reason that Guam got kicked out because we’re the lowest on the totem pole for the amount of money it’s going to cost to get us through in the bill.”

Certain zip codes
The bill also extends to communities in certain zip codes in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alaska, who were exposed to nuclear waste.

Celestial said it’s taken those states 30 years to be recognised and expects Guam to be eventually paid.

He said Moylan would likely now submit a standalone bill with the other states that were not included.

If that fails, he said Guam could be included in nuclear compensation through the National Defense Authorization Act in December, which is for military financial support.

The RECA extension includes uranium workers employed from 1 January 1942 to 31 December 1990.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

But while Republican governors in states that rely on those programs have largely remained silent about the bill’s effects, tribal leaders across the country are not mincing words about the upcoming fallout for their communities.

“These bills are an affront to our sovereignty, our lands, and our way of life. They would gut essential health and food security programs, roll back climate resilience funding, and allow the exploitation of our sacred homelands without even basic tribal consultation,” said Chalyee Éesh Richard Peterson, president of the Tlingit and Haida in Alaska, in a statement. “This is not just bad policy — it is a betrayal of the federal trust responsibility to tribal nations.”

Tribes across the country are particularly worried about the megabill’s hit to clean energy, complicating the development of critical wind and solar projects. According to the Department of Energy, tribal households face 6.5 times more electrical outages per year and a 28 percent higher energy burden compared to the average U.S. household. An estimated 54,000 people living on tribal lands have no electricity.

Under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, the Biden administration opened up new federal funding opportunities, increased the loan authority of the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program, and created new tax credits for wind energy, battery storage, large-scale solar farms, and programs to repurpose lands harmed by environmental degradation for related energy projects. When signed into law, Trump’s new bill will largely dismantle these programs.

Historically, tribes have had limited access to capital to fund clean energy projects. Through the IRA, new projects were driven by tribes to address community and infrastructure needs on their terms. According to tribes and energy advocacy groups, these projects not only help build energy infrastructure for each tribal nation but also create jobs, boost local economies, and affirm sovereignty.

Crystal Miller, a member of the Walker River Paiute Tribe, heads government affairs and policy at the Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy, underlined the existential outcomes for tribal communities. “It is extremely life or death if you’re talking about clean energy projects, in particular solar, which provide energy to homes, provide heat to homes that wouldn’t have it without because they don’t have lines run to their community,” she said.

Prior to the House vote, the Alliance for Tribal Clean Energy was part of a broader group that sent letters to Congress warning of the bill’s consequences for tribes, treaties, and domestic energy priorities. These “are not only economic but also environmental and humanitarian,” they wrote after the Senate narrowly approved the bill 51-50 earlier this week, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. 

Read Next

‘A self-inflicted tragedy’: Congress approves reversal of US climate policy

Joseph Winters

Miller pointed out that tribes weren’t consulted on the terms of the bill headed to Trump’s desk, yet they will be forced to live with the consequences. Tribal leaders across the United States warned the legislation could jeopardize projects critical to their communities’ energy needs: A tribal village in Alaska’s attempt to curb high electricity costs by establishing a tribal utility; the Cheyenne River Sioux’s efforts to navigate long, harsh winters in South Dakota; and California tribes’ development of microgrids to offset power outages due to wildfires. The Hopi Tribe in Arizona said the sovereign nation’s microgrid would fail after a historic transition from coal.  

Tribal leaders also warned there could be widespread job losses across the 574 federally recognized tribal nations, an outcome at odds with Trump’s economic promises. “When we talk about bringing jobs back to America and keeping them here domestically, that also includes tribal nations,” Miller said. 

Kimberly Yazzie, a Diné professor at the University of British Columbia whose previous research focused on tribal clean energy development, called the legislation a big setback — though not entirely unexpected. “Tribes have been presented with challenges in the past hundred years and this is a challenge we’ll have to face,” she said. “It will come down to the tribal, entity, and individual level, and how they want to best move forward.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Clean energy projects on tribal lands were booming. Then came Trump’s tax bill. on Jul 3, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Miacel Spotted Elk.

Below is a statement by Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Thanks to this bill, millions of people will lose access to federal safety net programs, like food assistance and health care, to fund tax cuts that benefit the ultra-wealthy. The bill also trades the health and well-being of people across the country for the profits of oil, gas and coal companies. Our country will be paying the price for these reckless policies for decades to come.

“In passing this bill, lawmakers repeatedly overrode the needs and interests of their constituents. When benefits are lost, when energy prices spike, when major clean energy and clean transportation investments are canceled, when jobs are cut, when climate-exacerbated extreme weather disasters hit, people should know who they have to thank.

“This bill is a damning indictment of Congress' priorities and values. Our country needs policymakers willing to confront the challenges of our time and fight for a better tomorrow, not sell out America for the benefit of a few.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

• Completely strip Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) access for more than 2 million vulnerable Americans. The bill cuts $186 billion, an approximate 20 percent cut – the largest cut to the program in U.S. history. As many as 5 million people, including about 1 million children, live in households that could lose some or all of their hunger and nutrition assistance.
• Mandate more oil and gas sales on public lands and offshore, drastically increasing pollution and climate risks for all Americans.
• Increase subsidies for oil extraction by $14 billion through changes to the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture and utilization, on top of provisions in the bill that create tax loopholes that would allow the carbon capture industry to escape federal income taxes.
• Repeal major clean energy and environmental justice programs, including funding to address air pollution at schools, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, and Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants.
• Create a pay-to-play scheme to fast track environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act.

In response, Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said:

“As we approach Independence Day, Republicans in Congress have passed a budget that is a direct attack on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we should be celebrating. This draconian budget will mean more hunger, more premature death from lack of healthcare, and more people’s lives and homes devastated by climate disasters. This is a massive handout to big corporations and billionaires at the expense of ordinary people. Extravagant White House celebrations won’t save the millions of people impacted by this terrible bill.
“Congress acted on Trump’s artificial deadline to get this bill passed by July 4th, but there is nothing patriotic or freeing about this direct attack on American’s safe food, clean water and a livable climate.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“The megabill isn’t about reform—it’s about rewarding the super rich and doling out fossil fuel industry handouts, all while dismantling the social safety nets on which millions depend for stability. It is a bet against the future.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Trump’s Big Evil Bill is the blueprint of Project 2025 in action: a theocratic, authoritarian takeover of our democracy. This bill will expand presidential powers, weaken the lower courts, and crush humanitarian protections and put our already militized police state on Russian Olympian super steroids. Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB Director and the architect of Project 2025, made sure the money was there to turn July 4th into a funeral for the American Revolution by installing a mad king. 

But here’s the truth hiding in the despair: the more pain this bill causes, the more people it radicalizes. Just as past generations rose up during times of injustice, many Americans, especially those who embraced Trump’s con, like those manosphere-brain rotted Gen Z men, will be forced to wake up. They’ll see the betrayal. They’ll feel it. And some will finally fight back.

The far-right had a 40-year plan. We need ours. One model: The Gay Revolution by historian Lillian Faderman. It's the story of how love, courage, and relentless organizing by small groups of determined people, many forced to become activists because of state cruelty like the kind we’re now seeing, and won against impossible odds. The Gay Revolution is our roadmap of hope, and it pays tribute to the countless men and women, many who risked everything, many whose names we may never know, to cast out the darkness with love and defiance. 

Go to the Gaslit Nation’s Action Guide and choose action. Choose empathy. Choose to be the liberation this moment demands.

EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION:

• NEW DATE! Thursday July 31 4pm ET – the Gaslit Nation Book Club discusses Antoine de Saint Exupéry’s The Little Prince written in the U.S. during America First. 

• Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon. 

• Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon. 

• Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, available on Patreon. 

• Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon. 

• Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon. 

• Have you taken Gaslit Nation’s HyperNormalization Survey Yet?

• Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community

Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!

Show Notes:

The song featured in this episode is First They Came for Queers by Mr. Madam Adam. Find more of their music here: https://music.apple.com/us/album/first-they-came-for-queers/1690696748?i=1690696753

How to Protect Your Community from ICE: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ice-watch-programs-immigrants-how-to-start

How Trump’s bill will supercharge mass deportations by funneling $170bn to Ice https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/02/immigration-trump-big-beautiful-bill

Donald Trump’s weapons freeze on Ukraine could bring catastrophe https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/07/02/ukraine-russia-war-trump-weapons-freeze-missiles/

Pardoned Jan. 6 Rioter Who Threatened Police Joins Justice Dept. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/us/politics/justice-department-rioter-weaponization.html

House taking key vote on Trump's "big, beautiful bill," after GOP holdouts threaten final passage https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-big-beautiful-bill-rules-committee/

This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

• Trump’s Big Bill to be signed Friday after marathon vote and marathon speech by Dem leader Hakeem Jeffries;
• Democratic and labor leaders say Big Budget Bill will hurt workers and destroy the middle class;
• SF sues Trump over EPA termination of Environment Climate Justice grants;
• Advocates fear state cannabis tax proposals could unravel and hurt programs for children
• MALDEF planning million dollar lawsuit over US citizen arrested for filming ICE raid

The post Trump’s Big Bill to be signed Friday after marathon vote; Advocates fear state cannabis tax bills could unravel funding and hurt programs for children – July 3, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

As we broadcast, the House was soon set to vote on the so-called big, beautiful bill before the July 4 deadline imposed by President Trump. Should the House pass the legislation, the bill would be sent to Trump’s desk to be signed into law. The bill massively increases funding for ICE, cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid over a decade and adds $3.3 trillion to the nation’s debt.

“It makes people in the country who are in the bottom 30%, working hard to pay their bills, poorer, because it’s stripping away healthcare from them, stripping away food assistance from them. And it is all in the name of giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. … The top 20% in this country get 60% of the benefits,” says Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Then, leading up to Tuesday’s vote, Iowa senator Chuck Grassley, who has previously advocated for reining in America’s factory farms, proposed an amendment that took aim at the loophole — a measure that would make sure that farm safety nets reach small and medium-sized family farms, too, according to a one-pager on the amendment released by Grassley’s staff and obtained by Grist. 

Other Republicans from farm country balked at the move, and in the end, Senate agricultural committee chair John Boozman convinced Grassley to drop the amendment. The Senate voted to pass the bill, a huge legislative victory for Trump. It now moves back to the House for a final high-stakes vote before heading to the president’s desk. 

The exclusion of Grassley’s provision is congruent with the Trump administration’s two evident priorities when it comes to agricultural policy: slash federal food and farm funding, leaving small farmers struggling to stay afloat, and shower commodity farmers with multi-billion-dollar bailouts. 

The result, says Austin Frerick, an agricultural and antitrust expert, is akin to “throwing gasoline on the inequality in America and in the food system.”

In the end, the main agricultural policy elements of the Senate bill were virtually the same as what was in the House’s version. Funding for rural development programs, farm loans, programs that invest in local and regional supply chains, and farmer-led sustainable research remain conspicuously absent.

What both versions do contain is a slick budgeting maneuver that takes unobligated climate-targeted funds from President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, and re-invests them into programs under the current farm bill. In doing so, the budget bill would erase the requirements that the money must fund climate-specific projects. The Senate bill also retains the House’s proposal to increase subsidies to commodity farms — typically larger farms that grow crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans — by about $50 billion. 

“To me, it’s sending the message that there’s only one way to support farmers, and it’s through increased commodity subsidies for a select few farmers,” said Mike Lavender, policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “And the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.”

One prominent aspect where the Senate bill deviates from the House bill has to do with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The House proposed that the federal government shift the financial onus of SNAP costs onto states, for the first time ever — increasing the administrative costs states have to cover to up to 75 percent, as well as mandating states to pay for a portion of the benefit costs. The Senate bill does that, too, but to a lesser degree. It would require states with specific payment error rates to pay anywhere between 5 percent and as much as 15 percent of the benefit costs, with some final-hour exemptions made by Senate Republicans for Alaska and Hawai’i in order to get Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski to vote in favor of the bill. 

By taking resources away from the federal government’s first line of defense against rising rates of hunger, the risk of food insecurity for millions of Americans is poised to deepen. The bill also puts forward new SNAP work requirements, mandating that parents of children ages 14 and older, veterans, those who are unhoused, former foster youth, and a subset of older people all work to maintain their benefits. If finalized, fewer immigrants, including refugees, people approved for asylum, certain domestic violence victims and survivors of trafficking, would be eligible for the monthly grocery stipend. 

These changes are emblematic of what Parker Gilkesson Davis of the Center for Law and Social Policy calls “the decline of public benefit programs.” The changes to SNAP, Gilkesson Davis continued, will “take away from the people, who have just not been able to catch a break, the ability to put food on their table.” Congressional Budget Office estimates suggest the Senate proposal would reduce federal spending on SNAP by roughly $287 billion over a decade. It is also expected to cause a little over 22 million families to lose some or all of their monthly food benefits, according to a new report by the Urban Institute.   

Another of Trump’s priorities will have grave implications for farmworkers and the business of producing food. As it is written now, the bill will increase the $10 billion annual budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, by more than $100 billion through 2029 for detention facilities, border wall operations and deportations, and make it more expensive for immigrants to apply for asylum, work authorization, humanitarian parole, and temporary protected status. About 40 percent of crop farmworkers are immigrants without legal status.  

“When we see ourselves targeting communities who are working to put food on our tables, and you are removing them from meat processing plants, you’re removing them from the fields where they would have otherwise been processing or harvesting food, then we have less folks to put food on our tables,” said Nichelle Harriott, the policy director of HEAL Food Alliance. “What does that mean in terms of our broader food economy and food chain? So I don’t think this is a bill that has been thought through in terms of what will be the ripple effects on the economy, on people’s budgets, on people’s wallets.”

Senator Grassley was successful in advocating for another provision in the bill related to agriculture: an extension and increase for a federal credit for small producers of biofuels, a derivative of food crops such as corn. The bill also maintains the transferability rules that allow producers using the credits to avoid large tax liabilities. Biofuels, and the devotion of land to producing bioenergy crops, have long been regarded as a misguided climate solution. 

“The significant investment in biofuel developments is going to be detrimental to building a food system that is centered on farmers and consumers. Under these provisions, we’re literally turning our farmers into miners, where instead of growing food, they’ll be growing feed stocks for energy production,” said Jim Walsh, policy director at the nonprofit Food & Water Watch. That will not only “push up food costs on consumers,” he said, “but undermine our ability to actually build true clean energy projects.” 

For 20-year-old Cale Johnson, what’s at stake with the budget bill moving through Congress isn’t just about the national and global implications — it’s deeply personal. Growing up in Kearney, Nebraska, his family relied on SNAP dollars to be able to afford groceries for most of his life. Even with those benefits, he and his mother still had to go to food pantries and Salvation Army food drives every month to avoid going hungry.

The steep cuts to SNAP in the bill, Johnson says, is a reflection of how congressional policymakers misconstrue the purpose of the program, and who relies on it. “Especially in Nebraska, there are so many Trump voters and Republican voters, lifelong conservatives who are on [SNAP]” he said. “I don’t think they understand that this is going to hurt millions out of their own voter base, and that they’re going to be betraying the very people that have been loyal to them for decades.”

Frida Garza contributed reporting to this story. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s tax bill could be a major win for Big Ag. Everyone else? Not so much. on Jul 3, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Ayurella Horn-Muller.

White House press secretary Bill Moyers in 1965.

Bill Moyers died last week at the age of 91. His career began as a close aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson, serving as LBJ’s de facto chief of staff and then his press secretary, but Moyers spent most of his life in journalism. After the Johnson administration, he was briefly publisher of Long Island’s Newsday, which won two Pulitzers under his tenure before he was forced out for being too left (Extra!, 1–2/96).

Most of Moyers’ journalism, however, appeared on public television, an institution he helped launch as a member of the 1967 Carnegie Commission, which called for public TV to be “a forum for controversy and debate” that would  “provide a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise be unheard” and “help us see America whole, in all its diversity.”

While public TV as a whole has often failed to live up to those ideas, Moyers exemplified them.

Consistently critical

Bill Moyers (The Secret Government, 1987): “Can we have the permanent warfare state and democracy too?”

Moyers was a consistently critical voice on PBS. In 1987, his PBS special The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis offered a searing examination of the Iran/Contra scandal; he followed that up with an even deeper dive into the story three years later for Frontline with High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Moyers’ 2007 documentary Buying the War, aired four years into the Iraq War, offered a critique of media failures in the run-up to war that was rarely heard in corporate media.

His independence made him a thorn in PBS‘s side. Robert Parry (FAIR.org, 9/13/11) explained:

When I was working at PBS Frontline in the early 1990s, senior producers would sometimes order up pre-ordained right-wing programs—such as a show denouncing Cuba’s Fidel Castro—to counter Republican attacks on the documentary series for programs the right didn’t like, such as Bill Moyers’ analysis of the Iran/Contra scandal.

In essence, the idea was to inject right-wing bias into some programming as “balance” to other serious journalism, which presented facts that Republicans found objectionable. That way, the producers could point to the right-wing show to prove their “objectivity” and, with luck, deter GOP assaults on PBS funding.

When Moyers hosted the news program Now (2002-04), the right complained—and PBS addressed the complaints by cutting the hour-long show to 30 minutes, while adding three right-wing programs: Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered, a show by conservative commentator Michael Medved and the Journal Editorial Report, featuring writers and editors from the arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page (FAIR.org, 9/17/04).

Moyers was already heading out the door at Now, passing the torch to co-host David Brancaccio, who largely continued its hard-hitting tradition. Moyers returned to PBS in 2007 with a revival of his 1970s public affairs show, Bill Moyers Journal. When he retired that show in 2010, PBS also canceled Now. Moyers’ brand of independent journalism has been in short supply on PBS ever since.

Moyers diagnosed the problem in an appearance on Democracy Now! (6/8/11):

Sometimes self-censorship occurs because you’re looking over your shoulder, and you think, well, if I do this story or that story, it will hurt public broadcasting. Public broadcasting has suffered often for my sins, reporting stories the officials don’t want reported. And today, only…a very small percentage of funding for NPR and PBS comes from the government. But that accounts for a concentration of pressure and self-censorship. And only when we get a trust fund, only when the public figures out how to support us independently of a federal treasury, will we flourish as an independent medium.

‘Real change comes from outside the consensus’

Bill Moyers on Tavis Smiley (5/12/11): “Voices that challenge the ruling ideology…get constantly pushed back to the areas of the stage you can’t see or hear.”

Moyers shared FAIR’s critique of corporate media. On Tavis Smiley (5/13/11), he spoke about the elite bias in the media:

Television, including public television, rarely gives a venue to people who have refused to buy into the ruling ideology of Washington. The ruling ideology of Washington is we have two parties, they do their job, they do their job pretty well. The differences between them limit the terms of the debate. But we know that real change comes from outside the consensus. Real change comes from people making history, challenging history, dissenting, protesting, agitating, organizing.

Those voices that challenge the ruling ideology—two parties, the best of all worlds, do a pretty good job—those voices get constantly pushed back to the areas of the stage you can’t see or hear.

Jeff Cohen, FAIR’s founder, remembered Moyers’ impact on FAIR:

He was very supportive of FAIR from day one, and always offered encouragement to our staff. He was especially supportive of our studies of who gets to speak on PBS and NPR, and who doesn’t. He helped FAIR find funding for quarter-page advertorials on the New York Times op-ed page, which was then crucial and well-read media real estate, on various issues of corporate media bias or censorship. And he helped us find funding as well for a full-page ad in USA Today, exposing the distortions and lies of Rush Limbaugh.

Already some in corporate media are trying to push Moyers’ dissenting voice to the shadows. The New York Times (6/26/25), in a lengthy obituary devoted mostly to Moyers’ time working with LBJ, found no room to mention Moyers’ Iran/Contra work, or his repeated clashes with and criticisms of PBS. It did, however, find space to quote far-right website FrontPageMag.com, which in 2004 called Moyers a “sweater-wearing pundit who delivered socialist and neo-Marxist propaganda with a soft Texas accent.”

Featured Image: Bill Moyers at Arizona State University, 2017 (Creative Commons photo: Gage Skidmore)

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Julie Hollar.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations… evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.

—Declaration of Independence (1776)

We are now struggling to emerge from the wreckage of a constitutional republic, transformed into a kleptocracy (government by thieves), collapsing into kakistocracy (government by the worst), and enforced by a police state algogracy (rule by algorithm).

This week alone, the Trump administration is reportedly erecting protest barricades around the White House, Congress is advancing legislation that favors the wealthy, and President Trump is grandstanding at the opening of a detention center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.”

Against such a backdrop of government-sponsored cruelty, corruption and shameless profiteering at taxpayer expense, what, to the average American, is freedom in an age when the government plays god—determining who is worthy of rights, who qualifies as a citizen, and who can be discarded without consequence?

What are inalienable rights worth if they can be redefined, delayed, or revoked by executive order?

Frederick Douglass posed a similar challenge more than 170 years ago when he asked, “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?”

His question was a searing indictment not just of slavery but of a government that proclaimed liberty while denying it to millions—a hypocrisy that persists in a system still governed by institutions more committed to power than principle.

Every branch of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—has, in one way or another, abandoned its duty to uphold the Constitution. And both parties have prioritized profit and political theater over justice and the rights of the governed.

The founders of this nation believed our rights come from God, not government. That we are born free, not made free by bureaucrats or judges. That among these rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—none can be taken away without destroying the very idea of government by consent.

And yet that is precisely what’s happening.

We now live under a government that has become judge, jury, and executioner—writing its own laws, policing its own limits, and punishing those who object.

This is not what it means to be free.

When presidents rule by fiat, when agencies strip citizenship from naturalized Americans, when police act as both enforcers and executioners, and when courts rubber-stamp the erosion of basic protections, the distinction between a citizen and a subject begins to collapse.

What do inalienable rights mean in a country where:

• Your citizenship can be revoked based solely on the government’s say-so?
• Your freedom can be extinguished by surveillance, asset seizure, or indefinite detention?
• Your property can be taken, your speech censored, and your life extinguished without due process?
• Your life can be ended without a trial, a warning, or a second thought, because the government views you as expendable?

The answer is stark: they mean nothing—unless we defend them.

When the government—whether president, Congress, court, or local bureaucrat—claims the right to determine who does and doesn’t deserve rights, then no one is safe. Individuals become faceless numbers. Human beings become statistics. Lives become expendable. Dignity becomes disposable.

It is a slippery slope—justified in the name of national security, public safety, and the so-called greater good—that leads inevitably to totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, we have been dancing with this devil for far too long, and now, the mask has come off.

This is what authoritarianism looks like in America today.

Imagine living in a country where government agents crash through doors to arrest citizens merely for criticizing government officials. Where police stop and search you on a whim. Where carrying anything that resembles a firearm might get you arrested—or killed. Where surveillance is constant, dissent is criminalized, and loyalty is enforced through fear.

If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.

But this scenario isn’t new. It’s the same kind of tyranny that drove American colonists to sever ties with Great Britain nearly 250 years ago.

Back then, American colonists lived under the shadow of an imperial power and an early police state that censored their speech, surveilled their movements, taxed their livelihoods, searched their homes without cause, quartered troops in their towns, and punished them for daring to demand liberty.

It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.

The Declaration of Independence—drafted by Thomas Jefferson and signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who risked everything—was their response. It was more than a list of grievances. It was a document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, a call to arms against a system that had ceased to represent the people and instead sought to dominate them.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death, because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.

Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up. They understood that silence in the face of tyranny is complicity. So they stood together, pledging “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” to the cause of freedom.

Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations.

The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to enshrine the liberties they fought for: due process, privacy, free speech, the right to bear arms, and limits on government power.

Now, nearly two and a half centuries later, those freedoms hang by a thread.

Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that almost 250 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms—at a minimum, merely questioning a government agent—is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.

In fact, had Jefferson and his compatriots written the Declaration of Independence today, they would almost certainly be labeled extremists, placed on government watchlists, targeted by surveillance, and prosecuted as domestic threats.

Read the Declaration of Independence again, and you’ll see the grievances they laid at the feet of King George—unjust laws, militarized policing, surveillance, censorship, and the denial of due process—are the very abuses “we the people” suffer under today.

Had Jefferson written the Declaration about the American police state in 2025, it might have read like a criminal indictment of the crimes perpetrated by a government that:

Polices by fear and violence:

• raiding family homes in the dead of night with SWAT teams that shoot pets and traumatize children;
• targeting vulnerable individuals—including the disabled and neurodivergent—for arrest under pretexts of noncompliance;
• killing unarmed citizens for not complying quickly enough;
• using roadside cavity searches and rectal probes as tools of humiliation and control.

Surveils and represses dissent:

• spying on its own citizens, reading private messages, tracking movements, and mining personal data;
• collecting DNA from innocent Americans and compiling biometric databases without consent;
• tracking drivers with license plate scanners and red-light cameras without due process;
• detaining protesters, journalists, and whistleblowers without trial, often labeling them as domestic threats;
• jailing veterans for criticizing the government;
• placing ordinary Americans on watchlists and labeling dissent as terrorism.

Strips away rights:

• seizing property through civil asset forfeiture without charges or due process;
• building secret prisons and detention centers shielded from judicial oversight;
• stripping citizenship from those it deems disloyal, making constitutional rights conditional;
• criminalizing homelessness, dissent, and disloyalty as pretexts for exclusion and punishment;
• criminalizing routine behavior under vague laws that fuel mass incarceration and overcriminalization.

Concentrates unchecked power in the executive:

• bypassing Congress with executive orders, sidelining the courts, and ruling by decree;
• weaponizing federal agencies to suppress opposition and silence critics;
• treating constitutional limits as optional and the presidency as a personal fiefdom.

These are not isolated abuses.

They are the logical outcomes of a government that has turned against its people.

They reveal a government that has claimed the god-like power to decide who gets rights—and who doesn’t. Who counts as a citizen—and who doesn’t. Who gets to live—and who becomes expendable.

All along the spectrum of life—from the unborn child to the elderly—the government continues to treat individuals endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights as if they are criminals, subhumans, or enemies of the state.

That is not freedom. It is tyranny.

And it must be called by its true name.

The truth is hard, but it must be said: the American police state has grown drunk on power, money, and its own authority.

The irony is almost too painful to articulate.

On the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence—a document that rebuked government corruption, tyranny, and injustice—we find ourselves surrounded by its modern-day equivalents.

This week’s spectacle—protest barricades, legislation to benefit the rich, and Trump’s appearance at Alligator Alcatraz, a.k.a. “Gator Gitmo”—shows how completely we have inverted the spirit of 1776.

That a president would celebrate the Fourth of July while inaugurating a modern-day internment camp—far from the reach of the courts or the Constitution—speaks volumes about the state of our nation and the extent to which those in power now glorify the very forms of tyranny the Founders once rose up against.

This is not law and order.

This is political theater, carceral cruelty, and authoritarianism in plain sight.

It is what happens when a nation that once prided itself on liberty now builds monuments to its own fear and domination.

The spectacle doesn’t end with detention camps and barricades. It extends into commerce, corruption, and self-enrichment at the highest levels of power.

President Trump is now marketing his own line of fragrances—a branding exercise so absurd it would be laughable if it weren’t a flagrant violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. His investments are booming. And all across his administration, top officials are shamelessly using public office to line their pockets, even as they push legislation to strip working-class Americans of the most basic benefits and protections, while claiming to be rooting out corruption and inefficiency.

This is not governance. This is kleptocracy—and it is happening in plain sight.

In the nearly 250 years since early Americans declared their independence from Great Britain, “we the people” have worked ourselves back under the tyrant’s thumb—only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making.

The abuses they once suffered under an imperial power haven’t disappeared. They’ve evolved.

We are being robbed blind by political grifters and corporate profiteers. We are being silenced by bureaucrats and blacklists. We are being watched by data miners and digital spies. We are being caged by militarized enforcers with no regard for the Constitution. And we are being ruled by presidents who govern not by law, but by executive decree.

Given the fact that we are a relatively young nation, it hasn’t taken very long for an authoritarian regime to creep into power.

Unfortunately, the bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight.

The architecture of oppression—surveillance, militarism, censorship, propaganda—was built slowly, brick by brick, law by law, war by war.

It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

The building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of—police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc.—were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests.

The result is an empire in decline and a citizenry under siege.

But if history teaches us anything, it’s that the power of the people—when awakened—is stronger than any empire.

For decades, the Constitution has been our shield against tyranny.

But today, it’s under siege. And now we must be the shield.

Surveillance is expanding. Peaceful dissent is being punished. Judges are being targeted. The presidency is issuing decrees and bypassing the rule of law.

Every institution meant to check power is being tested—and in some cases, broken.

This is the moment to stand in front of the Constitution and defend it.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the fight for freedom is never over. But neither is it lost—so long as we refuse to surrender, refuse to remain silent, and refuse to accept tyranny as the price of safety.

It is time to remember who we are. To reclaim the Constitution. To resist the march toward authoritarianism. And to reassert—boldly and without apology—that our rights are not up for negotiation.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations… evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.

—Declaration of Independence (1776)

We are now struggling to emerge from the wreckage of a constitutional republic, transformed into a kleptocracy (government by thieves), collapsing into kakistocracy (government by the worst), and enforced by a police state algogracy (rule by algorithm).

This week alone, the Trump administration is reportedly erecting protest barricades around the White House, Congress is advancing legislation that favors the wealthy, and President Trump is grandstanding at the opening of a detention center dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.”

Against such a backdrop of government-sponsored cruelty, corruption and shameless profiteering at taxpayer expense, what, to the average American, is freedom in an age when the government plays god—determining who is worthy of rights, who qualifies as a citizen, and who can be discarded without consequence?

What are inalienable rights worth if they can be redefined, delayed, or revoked by executive order?

Frederick Douglass posed a similar challenge more than 170 years ago when he asked, “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?”

His question was a searing indictment not just of slavery but of a government that proclaimed liberty while denying it to millions—a hypocrisy that persists in a system still governed by institutions more committed to power than principle.

Every branch of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—has, in one way or another, abandoned its duty to uphold the Constitution. And both parties have prioritized profit and political theater over justice and the rights of the governed.

The founders of this nation believed our rights come from God, not government. That we are born free, not made free by bureaucrats or judges. That among these rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—none can be taken away without destroying the very idea of government by consent.

And yet that is precisely what’s happening.

We now live under a government that has become judge, jury, and executioner—writing its own laws, policing its own limits, and punishing those who object.

This is not what it means to be free.

When presidents rule by fiat, when agencies strip citizenship from naturalized Americans, when police act as both enforcers and executioners, and when courts rubber-stamp the erosion of basic protections, the distinction between a citizen and a subject begins to collapse.

What do inalienable rights mean in a country where:

• Your citizenship can be revoked based solely on the government’s say-so?
• Your freedom can be extinguished by surveillance, asset seizure, or indefinite detention?
• Your property can be taken, your speech censored, and your life extinguished without due process?
• Your life can be ended without a trial, a warning, or a second thought, because the government views you as expendable?

The answer is stark: they mean nothing—unless we defend them.

When the government—whether president, Congress, court, or local bureaucrat—claims the right to determine who does and doesn’t deserve rights, then no one is safe. Individuals become faceless numbers. Human beings become statistics. Lives become expendable. Dignity becomes disposable.

It is a slippery slope—justified in the name of national security, public safety, and the so-called greater good—that leads inevitably to totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, we have been dancing with this devil for far too long, and now, the mask has come off.

This is what authoritarianism looks like in America today.

Imagine living in a country where government agents crash through doors to arrest citizens merely for criticizing government officials. Where police stop and search you on a whim. Where carrying anything that resembles a firearm might get you arrested—or killed. Where surveillance is constant, dissent is criminalized, and loyalty is enforced through fear.

If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.

But this scenario isn’t new. It’s the same kind of tyranny that drove American colonists to sever ties with Great Britain nearly 250 years ago.

Back then, American colonists lived under the shadow of an imperial power and an early police state that censored their speech, surveilled their movements, taxed their livelihoods, searched their homes without cause, quartered troops in their towns, and punished them for daring to demand liberty.

It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.

The Declaration of Independence—drafted by Thomas Jefferson and signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who risked everything—was their response. It was more than a list of grievances. It was a document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, a call to arms against a system that had ceased to represent the people and instead sought to dominate them.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death, because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.

Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up. They understood that silence in the face of tyranny is complicity. So they stood together, pledging “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” to the cause of freedom.

Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations.

The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to enshrine the liberties they fought for: due process, privacy, free speech, the right to bear arms, and limits on government power.

Now, nearly two and a half centuries later, those freedoms hang by a thread.

Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that almost 250 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms—at a minimum, merely questioning a government agent—is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.

In fact, had Jefferson and his compatriots written the Declaration of Independence today, they would almost certainly be labeled extremists, placed on government watchlists, targeted by surveillance, and prosecuted as domestic threats.

Read the Declaration of Independence again, and you’ll see the grievances they laid at the feet of King George—unjust laws, militarized policing, surveillance, censorship, and the denial of due process—are the very abuses “we the people” suffer under today.

Had Jefferson written the Declaration about the American police state in 2025, it might have read like a criminal indictment of the crimes perpetrated by a government that:

Polices by fear and violence:

• raiding family homes in the dead of night with SWAT teams that shoot pets and traumatize children;
• targeting vulnerable individuals—including the disabled and neurodivergent—for arrest under pretexts of noncompliance;
• killing unarmed citizens for not complying quickly enough;
• using roadside cavity searches and rectal probes as tools of humiliation and control.

Surveils and represses dissent:

• spying on its own citizens, reading private messages, tracking movements, and mining personal data;
• collecting DNA from innocent Americans and compiling biometric databases without consent;
• tracking drivers with license plate scanners and red-light cameras without due process;
• detaining protesters, journalists, and whistleblowers without trial, often labeling them as domestic threats;
• jailing veterans for criticizing the government;
• placing ordinary Americans on watchlists and labeling dissent as terrorism.

Strips away rights:

• seizing property through civil asset forfeiture without charges or due process;
• building secret prisons and detention centers shielded from judicial oversight;
• stripping citizenship from those it deems disloyal, making constitutional rights conditional;
• criminalizing homelessness, dissent, and disloyalty as pretexts for exclusion and punishment;
• criminalizing routine behavior under vague laws that fuel mass incarceration and overcriminalization.

Concentrates unchecked power in the executive:

• bypassing Congress with executive orders, sidelining the courts, and ruling by decree;
• weaponizing federal agencies to suppress opposition and silence critics;
• treating constitutional limits as optional and the presidency as a personal fiefdom.

These are not isolated abuses.

They are the logical outcomes of a government that has turned against its people.

They reveal a government that has claimed the god-like power to decide who gets rights—and who doesn’t. Who counts as a citizen—and who doesn’t. Who gets to live—and who becomes expendable.

All along the spectrum of life—from the unborn child to the elderly—the government continues to treat individuals endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights as if they are criminals, subhumans, or enemies of the state.

That is not freedom. It is tyranny.

And it must be called by its true name.

The truth is hard, but it must be said: the American police state has grown drunk on power, money, and its own authority.

The irony is almost too painful to articulate.

On the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence—a document that rebuked government corruption, tyranny, and injustice—we find ourselves surrounded by its modern-day equivalents.

This week’s spectacle—protest barricades, legislation to benefit the rich, and Trump’s appearance at Alligator Alcatraz, a.k.a. “Gator Gitmo”—shows how completely we have inverted the spirit of 1776.

That a president would celebrate the Fourth of July while inaugurating a modern-day internment camp—far from the reach of the courts or the Constitution—speaks volumes about the state of our nation and the extent to which those in power now glorify the very forms of tyranny the Founders once rose up against.

This is not law and order.

This is political theater, carceral cruelty, and authoritarianism in plain sight.

It is what happens when a nation that once prided itself on liberty now builds monuments to its own fear and domination.

The spectacle doesn’t end with detention camps and barricades. It extends into commerce, corruption, and self-enrichment at the highest levels of power.

President Trump is now marketing his own line of fragrances—a branding exercise so absurd it would be laughable if it weren’t a flagrant violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. His investments are booming. And all across his administration, top officials are shamelessly using public office to line their pockets, even as they push legislation to strip working-class Americans of the most basic benefits and protections, while claiming to be rooting out corruption and inefficiency.

This is not governance. This is kleptocracy—and it is happening in plain sight.

In the nearly 250 years since early Americans declared their independence from Great Britain, “we the people” have worked ourselves back under the tyrant’s thumb—only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making.

The abuses they once suffered under an imperial power haven’t disappeared. They’ve evolved.

We are being robbed blind by political grifters and corporate profiteers. We are being silenced by bureaucrats and blacklists. We are being watched by data miners and digital spies. We are being caged by militarized enforcers with no regard for the Constitution. And we are being ruled by presidents who govern not by law, but by executive decree.

Given the fact that we are a relatively young nation, it hasn’t taken very long for an authoritarian regime to creep into power.

Unfortunately, the bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight.

The architecture of oppression—surveillance, militarism, censorship, propaganda—was built slowly, brick by brick, law by law, war by war.

It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

The building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of—police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc.—were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests.

The result is an empire in decline and a citizenry under siege.

But if history teaches us anything, it’s that the power of the people—when awakened—is stronger than any empire.

For decades, the Constitution has been our shield against tyranny.

But today, it’s under siege. And now we must be the shield.

Surveillance is expanding. Peaceful dissent is being punished. Judges are being targeted. The presidency is issuing decrees and bypassing the rule of law.

Every institution meant to check power is being tested—and in some cases, broken.

This is the moment to stand in front of the Constitution and defend it.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the fight for freedom is never over. But neither is it lost—so long as we refuse to surrender, refuse to remain silent, and refuse to accept tyranny as the price of safety.

It is time to remember who we are. To reclaim the Constitution. To resist the march toward authoritarianism. And to reassert—boldly and without apology—that our rights are not up for negotiation.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

The budget bill just passed by the Senate provides more than $170 billion in new funding for immigration enforcement and detention. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, who worked on an analysis published by the American Immigration Council, says the new budget would make ICE “the single largest federal law enforcement agency in the history of the nation.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

After a contentious round of last-minute negotiations, President Trump’s budget bill has passed in the Senate, squeaking by thanks to Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Three Republicans joined Senate Democrats in voting “no” on the bill, which gives tax cuts to the rich and makes historic cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. The bill now heads to the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority, for a final vote before Trump’s July 4 deadline. Citizen groups, including the grassroots political organization ⁠Indivisible⁠, are calling on Americans, particularly those living in Republican and swing districts, to contact their House representatives and urge them to vote against the bill. “It’s not a done deal,” says Indivisible’s co-founder and co-executive director Ezra Levin. “They do not have the votes.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The most up-voted and least down-voted of the 650 reader-comments to it at Yahoo News as-of this writing was only 94 words but vastly more informative than that 860-word CBS ‘News’ story was:

George

So every one of you Medicaid recipients who voted for Trump can congratulate Trump and every MAGA member of Congress for either stripping you of health care or making it more difficult to qualify while these guys you voted for have 100% coverage that costs them nothing for life. The money they’re ripping from you is going to help pay for a tax break to people like Amazon owner Jeff Bezos, who just spent $50 million on his wedding reception. Make America Great Again for the billionaires by taking from the poor and disabled.

That too is analytical about Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” but it is meaningful instead of meaningless from the standpoint of informing the public about the realities that the public needs to know in order to be able to carry out intelligently their voting-responsibilities.

The ‘news’-media should fire the ‘journalists’ such as Caitlin Yilek who wrote that CBS ‘News’ article and hire ones such as ‘George’ who is not merely far pithier but far more informative. Then these ‘news’-media will become news-media.

Today at another of my articles, “America’s Republicans’ Hatred of the Poor,” I got a reader-comment about the type of elected public-office-holders that we get from such a billionaires-controlled press:

nameless

Eric, at the very beginning of the lock down, I attended a zoom round table set by Steve Kirsch, a former Silicon Valley executive. I forgot his name but the guest was a West Point Graduate. And he said in Sacramento, there was  a bill that was about to be passed that was not to the benefit of the population at large. So a bunch of voters gathered with picket signs asking for the bill not to be passed, and ready to get together and talk about it right at the front of whatever they call that place. Well, guess what happened? The thugs who refer to themselves as “our” law makers and legislators closed the doors behind them completely ignoring the protesters, went Inside and passed it anyway!!!!! This is what the cattle in this country refer to as “democracy”.

If the amount of money to one’s name is what determines one’s worth, then drug dealers, contract killers, murderers and child traffickers should be allowed a piece of the pie, and why not, let’s allow the drug cartel a seat in the Congress!!! LOL. All of these criminals get a piece of that pie, so why not allow the other Party a piece of their pie?! One of the DAs who were after Trump was caught to have no less than 15 million $ in one of her bank accounts, her official salary being like only a mere 100K$ a year!!! I mean you cut the mortgage payment, car payment, food, etc., and there will be virtually nothing left. But she has 15 million $ in the Bank!!!! Where did she get that from if not from drug money laundering, bribes and what have you?…They are all criminals. Thank you for Lincoln’s priceless speech. Awesome!!!

People tell me that my proposed solution to such problems as these is ‘too radical’ but have none of their own to propose instead. I can’t respect anyone who merely complains and who just ignores that the prevailing governmental and political rottenness REQUIRES a radical solution. So, if you don’t like mine, then please contact me and tell me why and tell me your own. And if you like mine, then tell me so, because all that I’ve gotten so far is people who still think that competitive elections by the public are essential in order to have a democracy, and who ignore the massive data proving that to be rabidly false. It seems that everybody is so elitist they can’t get out of that groove, not even to CONSIDER an alternative to it. In ‘democratic’ politics, the natural result is for the scum — no ‘elite’ — to rise to the top. Does NOBODY yet recognize this fact — not even with people such as Biden and Trump being in the White House? This is NOT a passing phenomenon; it has been like this ever since 1945 and is getting worse over time. How much worse does it have yet to be before people start opening their minds to the reality and acting on it?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

Senate Republicans voted Tuesday to advance Donald Trump’s massive spending and tax bill, which will now go back to the House of Representatives for final approval. President Trump has publicly pushed his party to get the bill on his desk to sign by July 4. Dozens of peaceful protestors, including disabled people in wheelchairs, were arrested last Wednesday, June 25, in Washington, DC, while protesting Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which will slash taxes, dramatically increase funding for war and immigration enforcement, and make devastating cuts to vital, popular programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Lorraine Chavez, an educator, researcher, and community leader based in Chicago, and Christine Rodriguez, a legal assistant from Pasadena, California, both of whom traveled to DC with the Debt Collective and were arrested for participating in the peaceful act of civil disobedience.

Guests:

• Lorraine Chavez is an educator, researcher, and community leader based in Chicago. She is also a student debtor and traveled to the Washington, DC, protest with the Debt Collective.
• Christine Rodriguez is a legal assistant and student debtor from Pasadena, California, who also traveled to the Washington, DC, protest with the Debt Collective.

Credits

• Studio Production / Post-Production: David Hebden

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Maximillian Alvarez.

Dozens of peaceful protesters, including disabled people in wheelchairs, were arrested last Wednesday in Washington, DC, while protesting President Trump’s massive spending and tax bill, which will dramatically slash taxes, restructure the student loan and debt system, and make devastating cuts to vital, popular programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). With Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday to advance Donald Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, which will now go back to the House of Representatives for final approval. In this urgent episode of Working People, we speak with Lorraine Chavez and Chrstine Rodriguez, who were among the dozens arrested for their peaceful act of civil disobedience on June 25, about what’s in this bill, what it will mean for working people, and how working people are fighting back

Guests:

• Lorraine Chavez is an educator, researcher, and community leader based in Chicago. She is also a student debtor and traveled to the Washington DC protest with the Debt Collective.
• Chrstine Rodriguez is a legal assistant and student debtor from Pasadena, California, who also traveled to the Washington DC protest with the Debt Collective.

Additional links/info:

• The Debt Collective website, X page, Facebook page, and Instagram
• Brett Wilkins, Common Dreams, “Medicaid defenders in wheelchairs arrested ahead of Senate vote on ‘betrayal of a bill’”
• Chris Stein, The Guardian, “What’s in Trump’s big, beautiful bill? Tax cuts, deportations and more”
• Chris Stein, The Guardian, “Senate Republicans pass Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ bill, clearing major hurdle”

Featured Music:

• Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

Credits:
Audio Post-Production: Jules Taylor

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Maximillian Alvarez.

The Republican Party was basically started by Lincoln, who (if he had lived) would have repudiated and condemned virtually all of his Republican successors. The assassination that killed him transformed his Party into its exact opposite, in the most important ways.

Here is Lincoln speaking, so that the transformation wrought by that bullet is made clear by Lincoln himself, in his own time:

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class — neither work for others nor have others working for them.

Lincoln was profoundly opposed to coerced labor, and he recognized that it can take many forms — not ONLY the form called ”slavery.” He also recognized that the few individuals who, as a group, own the most wealth and consequently hire a substantial percentage of the U.S. population, will possess, by their ability to hire and fire, enormous power, which might enable them to coerce their employees to accept unjustifiably low wages for their work. On this basis, he spoke publicly on the record as siding with the oppressed against their oppressors — even outside the context of merely slavery.

The poor are the lowest class of workers, and Lincoln there was making explicitly clear that — directly opposed to today’s Republican Party, which makes policy on the basis of the principle that a person is worth only whatever his/her net worth is, and so a billionaire is worth as much as a thousand millionaires — a person’s worth has no necessary relationship to his/her wealth — none.

Polling proves that vast majorities of the U.S. public detest Trump’s budget-and-tax priorities. Furthermore, an extraordinarily extensive Yale poll of nearly 5,000 Americans, published on June 27th, found that when respondents are informed of what is in Trump’s budget-and-tax bill, only 11% approve, 78% disapprove of it. Would it become law in a democracy? Of course not!

Today’s Republican Party — this Party that Lincoln would consider an abomination — is the exact opposite of anything that would become law in any democracy. If Trump’s bill, or anything like it, becomes law in America, this will be announcing to the entire world that America is a dictatorship by its super-rich. Such a Government used to be called an “aristocracy.” At every election-time, America’s public are being asked to side with one group of billionaires (the Republicann ones) against another group of billionaires (the Democratic ones), instead of to side with themselves and the rest of the public, against all billionaires — the remarkably few individuals who actually control the U.S. Government. This applies both in national U.S. politics and in state U.S. politics, so that the billionaires have veto-power to prevent ANY candidate they don’t control, from even getting their Party’s nomination (much less winning the final campaign). It is the aristocratic type of dictatorship — and Lincoln condemned it.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

Senate lawmakers are debating President Trump’s 940-page so-called big, beautiful bill as Republicans race to meet a Trump-imposed July 4 deadline and are set to vote on key amendments. Senate Republicans have deepened the cuts to Medicaid while cutting taxes for the wealthy and increasing the national deficit. “Basically, you have Republicans taking food and medicine and other things away from vulnerable people in order to finance tax cuts for the rich,” says David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect.

Dr. Adam Gaffney, a critical care physician and professor at Harvard Medical School, co-authored a report that found the bill could lead to 1.3 million Americans going without medications, 1.2 million Americans being saddled with medical debt, 380,000 women going without mammograms, and over 16,500 deaths annually. “I work in the ICU. I see patients with life-threatening complications of untreated illness because they didn’t get care because they couldn’t afford it. What happens when we add to that number massively?” says Gaffney.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“You will search the dominant media largely in vain for journalists that tell the truth about the fading of the American dream,” Moyers told a crowd of more than 3,000 people assembled at the 2008 conference in Minneapolis. “So it’s up to you to remind us that democracy only works when ordinary people claim it as their own. It’s up to you to write the story of an America that leaves no one out.”

Moyers called on people to build “a movement to challenge the stranglehold of mega-media corporations over our press and to build alternative and independent sources of news and information that people can trust.”

Free Press President and Co-CEO Craig Aaron said:

“Bill Moyers was a legend who lived up to his reputation. Moyers believed that journalism should serve democracy, not just the bottom line. He believed deeply in the power and potential of public media, and he set the standard for public broadcasting by telling stories you couldn’t find anywhere else. He always stood up to bullies — including those who come forward in every generation to try to crush public media and end its independence. We can honor his memory by continuing that fight.

“Moyers was a giant, who used his wide reach and wise words to lift up the voices of activists and change-makers, including the co-founders of Free Press. It’s no exaggeration to say that Free Press would not exist without Moyers’ support and encouragement. He was among the earliest supporters of Free Press and encouraged many others to join him. His wise and inspirational words motivated generations of media activists.

“Above all, Moyers was a kind and generous man, mentoring young journalists and activists – including me – and leading by example. We send our deepest condolences to his family, many friends and devoted colleagues, and millions of fans. There won’t be another Bill Moyers, but legions of us will try to carry on his work.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Free Press.

The legendary journalist Bill Moyers has died at the age of 91. Moyers, whose long career included helping found the Peace Corps and serving as press secretary for President Lyndon Johnson, was an award-winning champion of public television and independent media. We feature one of his numerous interviews on Democracy Now! where we discussed the history of public broadcasting in the United States and the powerful role of money in corporate media. “The power of money trumps the power of democracy today, and I’m very worried about it,” he said in a 2011 interview. His comments hold particular resonance as the Trump administration moves to strip federal funding from PBS and NPR today.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“You will search the dominant media largely in vain for journalists that tell the truth about the fading of the American dream,” Moyers told a crowd of more than 3,000 people assembled at the 2008 conference in Minneapolis. “So it’s up to you to remind us that democracy only works when ordinary people claim it as their own. It’s up to you to write the story of an America that leaves no one out.”

Moyers called on people to build “a movement to challenge the stranglehold of mega-media corporations over our press and to build alternative and independent sources of news and information that people can trust.”

Free Press President and Co-CEO Craig Aaron said:

“Bill Moyers was a legend who lived up to his reputation. Moyers believed that journalism should serve democracy, not just the bottom line. He believed deeply in the power and potential of public media, and he set the standard for public broadcasting by telling stories you couldn’t find anywhere else. He always stood up to bullies — including those who come forward in every generation to try to crush public media and end its independence. We can honor his memory by continuing that fight.

“Moyers was a giant, who used his wide reach and wise words to lift up the voices of activists and change-makers, including the co-founders of Free Press. It’s no exaggeration to say that Free Press would not exist without Moyers’ support and encouragement. He was among the earliest supporters of Free Press and encouraged many others to join him. His wise and inspirational words motivated generations of media activists.

“Above all, Moyers was a kind and generous man, mentoring young journalists and activists – including me – and leading by example. We send our deepest condolences to his family, many friends and devoted colleagues, and millions of fans. There won’t be another Bill Moyers, but legions of us will try to carry on his work.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

In response to the release of the letter, Sierra Club Clean Transportation for All Director Katherine García released the following statement:

“There’s nothing beautiful about toxic air pollution, saddling drivers with higher costs, and rolling back progress on clean transportation. At this moment, as half of the country is affected by an intense heat wave, we need to focus on investing in climate solutions and holding polluters accountable. The previous Congress had funded innovative and strategic programs to reduce costs, protect American jobs, and drive the competitiveness of the U.S. vehicle industry, and they’re working in communities across the nation in Republican and Democratic districts. This disastrous bill threatens to strip away that progress in giveaways to billionaires and corporate polluters. We urge all Senators to vote one, big beautiful no on this bill.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Kia ora koutou,

I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground.

At least 79 killed and 391 injured by Israeli forces in Gaza over the last 24 hours, including 33 killed and 267 injured while seeking aid at the US-Israel “humanitarian” centres.

*

Three killed and 7 injured by settler pogrom on the town of Kafr Malik, northeast of Ramallah; setting fire to houses and cars, and protected by soldiers. Israeli forces shot and killed 15-year-old Rayan Houshia west of Jenin as they retreated from resistance fighters, after using a civilian home as military barracks; also invading several towns across the West Bank, firing teargas into al-Fawar refugee camp south of Hebron, sound-bombs near the Jenin Grand Mosque in the north, and arresting several Palestinians.

• READ MORE: Israel kills more than 80 in Gaza; 3 killed in attack by Israeli settlers
• Other Middle East crisis reports

Al Quds/Jerusalem’s old city faced low visitor numbers even after restrictions were lifted by the Israeli occupation. Jerusalem Governate reported 623 homes and facilities demolished by Israel since October 2023.

*

Palestinian political prisoner Amar Yasser Al-Amour was released after 2.5 years without charge or trial in Israeli prisons. Thousands remain detained illegally in this way. Another freed prisoner Fares Bassam Hanani mourned his mother who passed away while he was imprisoned. Mohammad al-Ghushi, also freed, was taken to hospital to have his kidney removed due to torture and medical neglect he faced in Israeli prisons.

*

The unexpected ceasefire between Israel, America, and Iran appears to be holding for now. Iranian officials say the US “torpedoed diplomacy” and have passed a bill to halt cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA.

Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

“We are deeply concerned about the lack of transparency in the legislative process surrounding the Zambia Institute of Journalism Bill, which would place alarmingly restrictive controls on the media,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “We call on the government to ensure that this bill, which was publicly disavowed by President Hakainde Hichilema, does not become law.”

The bill would require journalists to obtain an annual license from a regulatory institute, which could be rescinded for misconduct; it has yet to be formally tabled in parliament. Those who impersonate journalists, work without a registration, or employ such individuals could face imprisonment of up to five years or fines of up to 200,000 Kwacha (US$8,000).

The justice ministry drafted the bill at the information ministry’s request, on behalf of the Media Liaison Committee, a media industry body, according to Modern Muyembe, media development director at the ministry of information. It was approved for legislative committee review in March.

The MLC’s acting chairperson, Felistus Chipako, did not respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment but was quoted by The Editor Zambia as saying that the bill sought to uphold professionalism and empower journalists.

Following an outcry from media rights and news organizations, Hichilema said he opposed the bill, saying it was not a government initiative, and that it risked undermining media independence.

Zambian media have been divided over regulation for many years. A similar bill was withdrawn in 2022 after a backlash. The High Court ruled in 1997 that compulsory registration was unconstitutional.

CPJ has recently expressed concern over the deterioration of press freedom in Zambia. In April, two cybersecurity laws giving the government broad surveillance powers were enacted amid concerns over Hichilema’s plans to amend the constitution ahead of next year’s elections.

Editor’s Note: Joan Chirwa, CPJ’s southern Africa researcher, is the founder of the Zambia Free Press Initiative, one of the organizations opposed to statutory media regulation.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Lauren Wolfe.

The Parliamentarian is tasked with issuing rulings to determine which provisions of the bill are subject to the “Byrd rule” and thus not eligible to be passed by simple majority using the reconciliation process. However, Thune and the Senate Republican majority recently took steps to override the Parliamentarian’s guidance on the Congressional Review Act, another fast-track legislative mechanism, to pass a measure by simple majority that otherwise would have required 60 votes.

“While the signatories to this letter have a range of views on the ongoing utility of the Senate filibuster, there is a unifying principle upon which we all can agree: the law as it stands must be followed,” the letter reads. “Indeed, you acknowledged as much earlier this Congress, when asked whether you would advise against moving to override the Senate Parliamentarian’s determinations under Byrd, stating, ‘[T]hat’s totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can’t go there. People need to understand that.’ This public stance would be heartening, had you not made similar assurances on maintaining the integrity of CRA process and followed them up by improperly extending that Act’s expedited procedures to the disapproval of any executive branch action, forging a primrose path around the filibuster in the process. Such depredations on law, precedent, and the institution of the Senate must end.”

“The Senate majority has already demonstrated it is willing to follow or ignore the rules based entirely on their preferences. But lives hang in the balance depending on the outcome of this bill, and it would be inexcusable for the majority to again burn the rulebook in the service of the destructive Trump agenda,” added Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen.

“The leadership in the Senate is heading down a dangerous path of ignoring the rules to get what it wants. If the Senate majority disregards the existing rules again for its massive tax bill, that would do incalculable damage to law, precedent, and the institution of the Senate,” added Kyle Jones, director of federal affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

• Appeals court hears Trump vs Newsom challenge to National Guard in Los Angeles
• Union workers arrested while protesting SF budget cuts at Board of Supervisors meeting
• CA Senate committee takes up bill to ban toxic PFAS chemicals in firefighters’ equipment
• NYC democratic mayoral candidate arrested by at immigration court
• Prominent Spanish-language journalist turned over to ICE after arrest covering No Kings protests in Atlanta area
• 60 killed, 280 injured while seeking food aid at aid distribution sites in Gaza

The post Appeals court hears Trump vs Newsom challenge to National Guard in LA; CA lawmakers consider bill banning toxic chemicals in firefighters’ equipment – June 17, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

So it was no surprise when, on Wednesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin gathered more than a half dozen Republican lawmakers at the agency’s Washington, D.C., headquarters to announce the planned repeal of two rules, finalized under the Biden administration, that established limits on carbon and mercury emissions from U.S. power plants. Once finalized, the Trump administration’s proposals will eliminate all caps on greenhouse gases from the plants and revert the mercury limit to a less strict standard from 2012, respectively. 

The Biden-era rules, Zeldin said Wednesday, were “expensive, unreasonable, and burdensome” attempts “to make all sorts of industries, including coal and more, disappear.” With demand for electricity poised to surge in the coming years, especially as tech companies make massive investments in artificial intelligence infrastructure, Zeldin said that the EPA’s new proposals will boost electricity generation and “make America the AI capital of the world.”

His argument was echoed by the slate of Republican lawmakers who followed him at the podium. The old rules “would have forced our most efficient and reliable power generation into early retirement, just as Ohio and the rest of the nation are seeing a historic rise in demand due to the AI revolution, new data centers, and a manufacturing resurgence,” said Representative Troy Balderson. “Between data centers, AI, and the growing domestic manufacturing base, the simple fact is we need more electrons on the grid to power all of this,” added Representative Robert Bresnahan of Pennsylvania. 

But despite their vigorous agreement that as many energy sources as possible are needed to power America’s future and keep utility bills affordable, every single representative who spoke on Wednesday had, just weeks earlier, cast a vote for a major bill in Congress that will almost certainly have the opposite effect. Analysts say that the pending legislation, which has the Trump-inspired title “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” will slow the country’s buildout of new electricity sources and eventually lead the average U.S. household to incur hundreds of dollars in additional annual energy costs.

That’s because the new GOP legislation essentially repeals the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark 2022 law that has resulted in roughly $800 billion in investments in clean energy technologies. By rolling back regulations on coal-fired power, the GOP’s hope seems to be that some of those lost energy investments can be compensated by fossil fuels. However, analysts agree that this is highly unlikely, due largely to the sheer cost of new coal-fired power, as well as supply bottlenecks that have sharply limited the feasibility of new natural gas plants. Instead, the result will likely just be more expensive electricity.

“The economics of coal plants are the worst they’ve ever been,” said Robbie Orvis, a senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank. “Even just keeping existing coal plants online compared to building new renewables is more expensive.”

To justify its repeal of the greenhouse gas emissions rule for power plants, the EPA is arguing that the U.S. power sector is responsible for just 3 percent of global emissions, and as a result is not a “significant” contributor to air pollution, which is the threshold the Clean Air Act sets for when the government can regulate a stationary source of emissions. While the 3 percent figure is factually accurate, experts say the argument is misleading, especially given that the power sector is responsible for about a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions within the country. 

“You’re dealing with something that has lots and lots and lots of sources, and you can’t just throw up your hands and say, ‘Well, this won’t achieve anything,’” said David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit founded by former EPA enforcement attorneys. 

If the U.S. power industry relies more on coal and natural gas relative to renewables, as Republicans appear to hope, those emissions could remain stubbornly high, especially as demand for power grows. What’s even more certain is that costs will continue to go up. The latest government inflation data shows that consumer electricity prices are already rising much more dramatically than overall consumer prices. In this environment, the technology companies building massive data centers to power cloud computing and AI have struggled to find adequate, cheap electricity. In fact, so many power-guzzling facilities are being built that lawmakers in Virginia, which is at the heart of the data center belt, have enacted legislation to prevent them from overwhelming the grid. 

Since utilities have been unable to meet the power needs of tech players like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon Web Services, some of these companies have begun directly contracting with renewables developers and striking deals with nuclear power plant operators. A trade group representing these companies recently asked the Senate to revise the pending legislation so it restores some of the clean energy provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act, saying the U.S. needs “affordable and reliable power” in order to “maintain its leadership in AI.” Analysts say such leadership is threatened if the Trump administration continues to try to tip the scales toward fossil fuel sources that are not competitive with newer sources of energy.

“The current administration is picking technology winners and losers and making trade-offs,” said Orvis. “And the trade-off they want to make is: get rid of the clean energy tax incentives that are driving all of this new clean electricity onto the grid, which puts downward pressure on prices and will lower people’s rates.”

Orvis added that higher electricity costs raise the cost of doing business for manufacturers, including those at the leading edge of AI, making it more difficult to compete with China. 

“We’re at a pivotal crossroads,” said Orvis. “We can either lean in and support the domestic growth of these industries by creating a policy environment with certainty, incentives, and support. Or we can do what the current administration is trying to do, and pull back on all of those things and allow China to step in.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s EPA accidentally made the case against passing the Big Beautiful Bill on Jun 13, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Naveena Sadasivam.

“The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs,” Sanders said. “With the exception of New Zealand, the United States is the only country in the world where it is legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs on television. It is time for us to end that international embarrassment. The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”

“The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier,” King said. “The End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act would prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs to protect people. This bill is a great step to ensure that patients are getting the best information possible and from the right source: their providers and not biased advertisements.”

Last year, the 10 largest drug companies made more than $100 billion in profits while the pharmaceutical industry spent over $5 billion on television ads. Prescription drug commercials now account for more than 30% of commercial time on major networks’ evening news programs. In the first three months of this year, Big Pharma spent more than $725 million advertising just 10 drugs. Meanwhile, the American people pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and one in four Americans cannot afford the costs of the medicine their doctors prescribe.

Banning direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising is not a radical idea. In addition to Secretary Kennedy, the American Medical Association endorsed a ban a decade ago. Studies have shown that more than half of prescription drug ads are misleading or false, causing many Americans to underestimate the associated risks. Harvard researchers found that the majority of the most advertised drugs had little to no therapeutic benefit compared to existing prescription drugs. America’s seniors are particularly at risk of being misled as pharmaceutical companies strategically target them by pushing high-priced medications that may cause them harm.

For example, in 2010, Eli Lilly spent $205 million on direct-to-consumer ads and made $3.2 billion in sales for the antidepressant drug Cymbalta, despite Food and Drug Administration (FDA) findings that the company’s ads made unsupported and misleading claims of effectiveness and minimized its safety risks. Merck spent $300 million marketing the painkiller Vioxx and made $2.5 billion in sales, despite finding in 2000 that their product raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Dr. David Graham, a senior FDA official, testified in 2004 that Merck’s failure to stop selling Vioxx had resulted in as many as 55,000 unnecessary deaths from heart attacks and stroke.

Drug companies are also spending huge amounts of money on prescription drugs that cost, in some cases, more than ten times as much in the United States than other countries. In 2023, Novo Nordisk spent $263 million on direct-to-consumer ads for Wegovy and $208 million on ads for Ozempic. Today, Novo Nordisk charges nearly $1,000 a month for Ozempic in the United States, while this same exact drug can be purchased for just $59 in Germany, $71 in France, $122 in Denmark, and $155 in Canada. Novo Nordisk also charges Americans with obesity $1,349 a month for Wegovy while this same exact product can be purchased for just $92 in the United Kingdom, $137 in Germany, $186 in Denmark and $265 in Canada.

Joining Sanders and King as cosponsors of the legislation are Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill).

Read the bill text here.

Read a summary of the bill here.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Nearly two dozen congressmembers are backing legislation, the Block the Bombs Act, that would withhold offensive weapons from Israel that violate international law and humanitarian norms. “What Bibi Netanyahu wants is to continue to escalate this ground invasion and starvation of Palestinians, to absolutely take over Gaza and destroy Palestinian life,” says Congressmember Delia Ramirez, one of the co-sponsors.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Congressional Republicans are publicly brushing off the insults and fireworks between Elon Musk and Donald Trump as a social media spat that will not dent support for the ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’ 

But, behind the scenes, a key Democrat says this posturing belies the chaos that has engulfed the party since Musk publicly denounced the legislation. In short, he says, Republicans are running scared.

“The Republicans were leaving the floor as fast as they possibly could. They didn’t want to talk to anybody. They wanted to get out of town,” Democrat Congressman John Garamendi said shortly after a morning floor session Friday.

“I suspect when they go back to their districts, they’re going to hide in their closets,” he added.  

He thinks it’s possible that fallout from the feud could impede the massive bill that will cut healthcare access for 10.9 million people and will undo critical tax credits for renewable energy, among other provisions. 

“[The] Trump and Musk divorce is having a profound effect on the legislation,” he said. “It’ll play out over the weekend as the Republicans go home. I assume they’re going to talk to their constituents, maybe they’ll just hide out.”

Garamendi is a California Democrat known for supporting progressive priorities and co-sponsoring legislation such as Medicare for All, student loan forgiveness, the Green New Deal and raising the federal minimum wage. He says conservatives are terrified of Musk and are unsure of how to proceed. 

“It’s very clear for the three Republicans I talked to, they do not know what this is going to mean, but I can tell them what it means is that the reconciliation bill is in trouble.”

“Will it cause the reconciliation bill to die? I hope so,” he said. 

This is not the first time the progressive stalwart has predicted Republican disarray. 

In April, Garamendi argued that the Musk-Trump relationship would fracture and that the mayhem caused by DOGE or the Department of Government Efficiency would cause Republicans to distance themselves from the President.  

“Right now Republicans have a stonewall but it’s breaking,” he said at the Hands Off protest in Washington, DC. “The pressure is being built by this crowd… it will manifest and Republicans will break away from Trump.”

Just off the floor on Friday, he said his Republican colleagues did not want to talk about the messy split between Trump and Musk. He thinks the consequences from the very public falling out will play out when Congress is back in session. 

“Next week’s going to be very, very important because this divorce is going to have an effect on the reconciliation legislation.”

The ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is currently awaiting passage in the Senate, where it faces pushback from a variety of legislators, including fiscal hawks. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to the nation’s debt if passed.  

Garamendi said the bill is a disaster that gives tax cuts to the richest Americans at the expense of the working class. He believes if the bill makes it through the reconciliation process and into law, voters will punish Republicans in the 2026 midterms. 

“Why are we giving a tax break to the super wealthy? You think they need it? They’ve got more money they can possibly spend.” 

“We don’t need to make the kind of cuts in healthcare, in food programs and international aid programs that are in that legislation.”

The current version of the bill would cut Medicaid spending by roughly $880 billion. The reduction in funding would be achieved by what Garamendi deemed burdensome red tape and work requirements that would entangle people who cannot afford health insurance.

It would also end Obamacare-related subsidies, curtailing a program that now provides health insurance to 24 million Americans. Strangely, Republican members of congress have yet to acknowledge the impact this would have on their state budgets—let alone their constituents dependent upon both healthcare programs.

To respond to the Republicans’ massive legislative push, we asked Garamendi if Democrats were preparing a Project 2029 to counter Project 2025, the now-infamous conservative playbook that the Trump administration has been working to implement. 

Garamendi said he has been working with Democratic colleagues to craft a list of progressive priorities—and that it was needed right now.  

“We were actually working on something. Project 2026,” he said. “We need an overarching message in which the Democratic Party is a party that is for the working men and women of America, for the families of America.”

We reached out to the office of House Speaker Mike Johnson for comment on Garamendi’s remarks.  They have yet to respond.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham.

On 2 November 2008, the New York Times Magazine headlined “Questions for James K. Galbraith: The Populist,” which was an “Interview by Deborah Solomon” of the prominent liberal economist and son of John Kenneth Galbraith. She asked him, “There are at least 15,000 professional economists in this country, and you’re saying only two or three of them foresaw the mortgage crisis” which had brought on the second Great Depression?

He answered: “Ten or twelve would be closer than two or three.”

She very appropriately followed up immediately with “What does this say about the field of economics, which claims to be a science?”

He didn’t answer by straight-out saying that economics isn’t any more of a science than physics was before Galileo, or than biology was before Darwin. He didn’t proceed to explain that the very idea of a Nobel Prize in Economics was based upon a lie which alleged that economics was the first field to become scientific within all of the “social sciences,” when, in fact, there weren’t yet any social sciences, none yet at all. But he came close to admitting these things, when he said: “It’s an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.” His term “useless” was a euphemism for false. His term “blot” was a euphemism for “nullification.”

On 9 January 2009, economist Jeff Madrick headlined at The Daily Beast, “How the Entire Economics Profession Failed,” and he opened:

At the annual meeting of American Economists, most everyone refused to admit their failures to prepare or warn about the second worst crisis of the century.

I could find no shame in the halls of the San Francisco Hilton, the location at the annual meeting of American economists. Mainstream economists from major universities dominate the meetings, and some of them are the anointed cream of the crop, including former Clinton, Bush and even Reagan advisers.

There was no session on the schedule about how the vast majority of economists should deal with their failure to anticipate or even seriously warn about the possibility that the second worst economic crisis of the last hundred years was imminent.

I heard no calls to reform educational curricula because of a crisis so threatening and surprising that it undermines, at least if the academicians were honest, the key assumptions of the economic theory currently being taught. …

I found no one fundamentally changing his or her mind about the value of economics, economists, or their work.”

He observed a scandalous profession of quacks who are satisfied to remain quacks. The public possesses faith in them because it possesses faith in the “invisible hand” of God, and everyone is taught to believe in that from the crib. In no way is it science.

In a science, when facts prove that the theory is false, the theory gets replaced, it’s no longer taught. In a scholarly field, however, that’s not so — proven-false theory continues being taught. In economics, the proven-false theory continued being taught, and still continues today to be taught. This demonstrates that economics is still a religion or some other type of philosophy, not yet any sort of science.

Mankind is still coming out of the Dark Ages. The Bible is still being viewed as history, not as myth (which it is), not as some sort of religious or even political propaganda. It makes a difference — a huge difference: the difference between truth and falsehood.

The Dutch economist Dirk J. Bezemer, at Groningen University, posted on 16 June 2009 a soon-classic paper, “‘No One Saw This Coming’: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models,” in which he surveyed the work of 12 economists who did see it (the economic collapse of 2008) coming; and he found there that they had all used accounting or “Flow of Funds” models, instead of the standard microeconomic theory. (In other words: they accounted for, instead of ignored, debts.) From 2005 through 2007, these accounting-based economists had published specific and accurate predictions of what would happen: Dean Baker, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Stephen (“Steve”) Keen, Jakob B. Madsen, Jens K. Sorensen, Kurt Richebaecher, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Robert Shiller.

He should have added several others. Paul Krugman, wrote a NYT column on 12 August 2005 headlined “Safe as Houses” and he said “Houses aren’t safe at all” and that they would likely decline in price. On 25 August 2006, he bannered “Housing Gets Ugly” and concluded “It’s hard to see how we can avoid a serious slowdown.” Bezemer should also have included Merrill Lynch’s Chief North American Economist, David A. Rosenberg, whose The Market Economist article “Rosie’s Housing Call August 2004” on 6 August 2004 already concluded, “The housing sector has entered a ‘bubble’ phase,” and who presented a series of graphs showing it. Bezemer should also have included Satyajit Das, about whom TheStreet had headlined on 21 September 21 2007, “The Credit Crisis Could Be Just Beginning.” He should certainly have included Ann Pettifor, whose 2003 The Real World Economic Outlook, and her masterpiece the 2006 The Coming First World Debt Crisis, predicted exactly what happened and why. Her next book, the 2009 The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers, was almost a masterpiece, but it failed to present any alternative to the existing microeconomic theory — as if microeconomic theory isn’t a necessary part of economic theory. Another great economist he should have mentioned was Charles Hugh Smith, who had been accurately predicting since at least 2005 the sequence of events that culminated in the 2008 collapse. And Bezemer should especially have listed the BIS’s chief economist, William White, regarding whom Germany’s Spiegel headlined on 8 July 2009, “Global Banking Economist Warned of Coming Crisis.” (It is about but doesn’t mention nor link to https://www.bis.org/publ/work147.pdf.) White had been at war against the policies of America’s Fed chief Alan Greenspan ever since 1998, and especially since 2003, but the world’s aristocrats muzzled White’s view and promoted Greenspan’s instead. (The economics profession have always been propagandists for the super-rich.) Bezemer should also have listed Charles R. Morris, who in 2007 told his publisher Peter Osnos that the crash would start in Summer 2008, which was basically correct. Moreover, James K. Galbraith had written for years saying that a demand-led depression would result, such as in his American Prospect “How the Economists Got It Wrong,” 30 November 2002; and “Bankers Versus Base,” 15 April 2004, and culminating finally in his 2008 The Predator State, which blamed the aristocracy in the strongest possible terms for the maelstrom to come. Bezemer should also have listed Barry Ritholtz, who, in his “Recession Predictor,” on 18 August 2005, noted the optimistic view of establishment economists and then said, “I disagree … due to Psychology of consumers.” He noted “consumer debt, not as a percentage of GDP, but relative to net asset wealth,” and also declining “median personal income,” as pointing toward a crash from this mounting debt-overload. Then, on 31 May 2006, he headlined “Recent Housing Data: Charts & Analysis,” and opened: “It has long been our view that Real Estate is the prime driver of this economy, and its eventual cooling will be a major crimp in GDP, durable goods, and consumer spending.” Bezemer should also have listed both Paul Kasriel and Asha Bangalore at Northern Trust. Kasriel headlined on 22 May 2007, “US Economy May Wake Up Without Consumers’ Prodding?” and said it wouldn’t happen – and consumers were too much in debt. Then on 8 August 2007, he bannered: “US Economic Growth in Domestic Final Demand,” and said that “the housing recession is … spreading to other parts of the economy.” On 25 May 2006, Bangalore headlined “Housing Market Is Cooling Down, No Doubts About It.” and that was one of two Asha Bangalore articles which were central to Ritholtz’s 31 May 2006 article showing that all of the main indicators pointed to a plunge in house-prices that had started in March 2005; so, by May 2006, it was already clear from the relevant data, that a huge economic crash was comning soon. Another whom Bezemer should have listed was L. Randall Wray, whose 2005 Levy Economics Institute article, “The Ownership Society: Social Security Is Only the Beginning” asserted that it was being published “at the peak of what appears to be a real estate bubble.” Bezemer should also have listed Paul B. Farrell, columnist at marketwatch.com, who saw practically all the correct signs, in his 26 June 2005 “Global Megabubble? You Decide. Real Estate Is Only Tip of Iceberg; or Is It?”; and his 17 July 2005 “Best Strategies to Beat the Megabubble: Real Estate Bubble Could Trigger Global Economic Meltdown”; and his 9 January 2006 “Meltdown in 2006? Cast Your Vote”; and 15 May 2006 “Party Time (Until Real Estate Collapses)”; and his 21 August 2006 “Tipping Point Pops Bubble, Triggers Bear: Ten Warnings the Economy, Markets Have Pushed into Danger Zone”; and his 30 July 2007 “You Pick: Which of 20 Tipping Points Ignites Long Bear Market?” Farrell’s commentaries also highlighted the same reform-recommendations that most of the others did, such as Baker, Keen, Pettifor, Galbraith, Ritholtz, and Wray; such as break up the mega-banks, and stiffen regulation of financial institutions. However, the vast majority of academically respected economists disagreed with all of this and were wildly wrong in their predictions, and in their analyses. The Nobel Committee should have withdrawn their previous awards in economics to still-practicing economists (except to Krugman who did win a Nobel) and re-assigned them to these 25 economists, who showed that they had really deserved it.

And there was another: economicpredictions.org tracked four economists who predicted correctly the 2008 crash: Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Med Jones, the latter of whom had actually the best overall record regarding the predictions that were tracked there.

And still others should also be on the list: for example, Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider headlined on 21 November 2012, “The Genius Who Invented Economics Blogging Reveals How He Got Everything Right And What’s Coming Next” and he interviewed Bill McBride, who had started his calculated riskblog in January 2005. So I looked in the archives there at December 2005, and noticed December 28th, “Looking Forward: 2006 Top Economic Stories.” He started there with four trends that he expected everyone to think of, and then listed another five that weren’t so easy, including “Housing Slowdown. In my opinion, the Housing Bubble was the top economic story of 2005, but I expect the slowdown to be a form of Chinese water torture. Sales for both existing and new homes will probably fall next year from the records set in 2005. And median prices will probably increase slightly, with declines in the more ‘heated markets.’” McBride also had predicted that the economic rebound would start in 2009, and he was now, in 2012, predicting a strong 2013. Probably Joe Weisenthal was right in calling McBride a “Genius.”

And also, Mike Whitney at InformationClearinghouse.info and other sites, headlined on 20 November 2006, “Housing Bubble Smack-Down,” and he nailed the credit-boom and Fed easy-money policy as the cause of the housing bubble and the source of an imminent crash.

Furthermore, Ian Welsh headlined on 28 November 2007, “Looking Forward At the Consequences of This Bubble Bursting,” and listed 10 features of the crash to come, of which 7 actually happened.

In addition, Gail Tverberg, an actuary, headlined on 9 January 2008 “Peak Oil and the Financial Markets: A Forecast for 2008,” and provided the most detailed of all the prescient descriptions of the collapse that would happen that year.

Furthermore, Gary Shilling’s January 2007 Insight newsletter listed “12 investment themes” which described perfectly what subsequently happened, starting with “The housing bubble has burst.”

And the individual investing blogger Jesse Colombo started noticing the housing bubble even as early as 6 September 2004, blogging at his stock-market-crash.net “The Housing Bubble” and documenting that it would happen (“Here is the evidence that we are in a massive housing bubble:”) and what the economic impact was going to be. Then on 7 February 2006 he headlined “The Coming Crash!” and said “Based on today’s overvalued housing prices, a 20 percent crash is certainly in the cards.”

Also: Stephanie Pomboy of MacroMavens issued an analysis and appropriate graphs on 7 December 2007, headlined “When Animals Attack” and predicting imminently a huge economic crash.

In alphabetical order, they are: Dean Baker, Asha Bangalore, Jesse Colombo, Satyajit Das, Paul B. Farrell, James K. Galbraith, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Med Jones, Paul Kasriel, Steve Keen, Paul Krugman, Jakob B. Madsen, Bill McBride, Charles R. Morris, Ann Pettifor, Stehanie Pomboy, Kurt Richebaeker, Barry Ritholtz, David A. Rosenberg, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, Robert Shiller, Gary Shilling, Charles Hugh Smith, Jens K. Sorensen, Gail Tverberg, Ian Welsh, William White, Mike Whitney, L. Randall Wray.

Thus, at least 33 economists were contenders as having been worth their salt as economic professionals. One can say that only 33 economists predicted the 2008 collapse, or that only 33 economists predicted accurately or reasonably accurately the collapse. However, some of those 33 were’t actually professional economists. So, some of the world’s 33 best economists aren’t even professional economists, as accepted in that rotten profession.

So, the few honest and open-eyed economists (these 33, at least) tried to warn the world. Did the economics profession honor them for their having foretold the 2008 collapse? Did President Barack Obama hire them, and fire the incompetents he had previously hired for his Council of Economic Advisers? Did the Nobel Committee acknowledge that it had given Nobel Economics Prizes to the wrong people, including people such as the conservative Milton Friedman whose works were instrumental in causing the 2008 crash? Also complicit in causing the 2008 crash was the multiple-award-winning liberal economist Lawrence Summers, who largely agreed with Friedman but was nonetheless called a liberal. Evidently, the world was too corrupt for any of these 33 to reach such heights of power or of authority. Like Galbraith had said at the close of his 2002 “How the Economists Got It Wrong“: “Being right doesn’t count for much in this club.” If anything, being right means being excluded from such posts. In an authentically scientific field, the performance of one’s predictions (their accuracy) is the chief (if not SOLE) determinant of one’s reputation and honor amongst the profession, but that’s actually not the way things yet are in any of the social “sciences,” including economics; they’re all just witch-doctory, not yet real science. The fraudulence of these fields is just ghastly. In fact, as Steve Keen scandalously noted in Chapter 7 of his 2001 Debunking Economics: “As this book shows, economics [theory] is replete with logical inconsistencies.” In any science, illogic is the surest sign of non-science, but it is common and accepted in the social ‘sciences’, including economics. The economics profession itself is garbage, a bad joke, instead of any science at all.

These 33 were actually only candidates for being scientific economists, but I have found the predictions of some of them to have been very wrong on some subsequent matters of economic performance. For example, the best-known of the 33, Paul Krugman, is a “military Keynesian” — a liberal neoconservative (and military Keynesianism is empirically VERY discredited: false worldwide, and false even in the country that champions it, the U.S.) — and he is unfavorable toward the poor, and favorable toward the rich; so, he is acceptable to the Establishment.) Perhaps a few of these 33 economists (perhaps half of whom aren’t even members of the economics profession) ARE scientific (in their underlying economic beliefs — their operating economic theory) if a scientific economics means that it’s based upon a scientific theory of economics — a theory that is derived not from any opinions but only from the relevant empirical data. Although virtually all of the 33 are basically some sort of Keynesian, even that (Keynes’s theory) isn’t a full-fledged theory of economics (it has many vagaries, and it has no microeconomics). The economics profession is still a field of philosophy, instead of a field of science.

The last chapter of my America’s Empire of Evil presents what I believe to be the first-ever scientific theory of economics, a theory that replaces all of microeconomic theory (including a micro that’s integrated with its macro) and is consistent with Keynes in macroeconomic theory; and all of which theory is derived and documented from only the relevant empirical economic data — NOT from anyone’s opinions. The economics profession think that replacing existing economic theory isn’t necessary after the crash of 2008, but I think it clearly IS necessary (because — as that chapter of my book shows — all of the relevant empirical economic data CONTRADICT the existing economic theory, ESPECIALLY the existing microeconomic theory).

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

Heidi Shierholz is the president of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that uses the power of its research on economic trends and on the impact of economic policies to advance reforms that serve working people, deliver racial justice, and guarantee gender equity. In 2021 she became the fourth president EPI has had since its founding in 1986.

We've never seen a budget that so plainly takes from the poor to give to the rich… The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that lower and lower middle-income people will actually lose out. They may get something of a tax break, but they lose benefits. So that on net, their after-tax income will be lower after this bill, while the rich just make out like bandits.

Heidi Shierholz, President of the Economic Policy Institute

The draconian cuts that we are seeing to the safety net are not big enough, because the tax increases are so huge that this bill also increases the deficit dramatically.

Heidi Shierholz

Many folks are calling this the MAGA Murder Bill. They're not wrong. People will die because of the cuts that we're seeing here.

Heidi Shierholz

Robert Hunter is the Director Emeritus of Insurance at the Consumer Federation of America. He has held many positions in the field, both public and private, including being the Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas being the President and Founder of the National Insurance Consumer Organization and served as United States Federal Insurance Administrator.

Decide how much you need. Don't ask for more than you really need. And then once you have it, “I need this much for my car. I need this much if I hit somebody” and so on. And then you get that statistic, and you send it out to several companies and get quotes.

Robert Hunter on buying auto insurance

There isn't any program benefiting the American people that Trump is not cutting in order to turn the country over to the giant corporations and the super-rich. It's basically an overthrow of the government and an overthrow of the rule of law.

Ralph Nader

News 6/6/25

1. On May 23rd, the Trump administration Department of Justice officially announced it had reached an agreement with Boeing to drop its criminal case against the airline manufacturer related to the 2018 and 2019 crashes that killed 346 people, NPR reports. The turnover at the federal government in recent years has prolonged this case; the first Trump administration reached a deferred prosecution agreement with Boeing in 2021, but prosecutors revived the criminal case under President Biden, and as NPR notes, “Boeing agreed last year to plead guilty to defrauding regulators, but a federal judge rejected that proposed plea deal.” Just before the deal was reached, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal penned a letter calling on the DOJ not to “allow [Boeing] to weasel its way out of accountability for its failed corporate culture, and for any illegal behavior that has resulted in deadly consequence,” but this was clearly ignored. Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and former federal judge who, according to NPR, is representing the families of victims for free, said, “This kind of non-prosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history…My families will object and hope to convince the court to reject [the deal]."

2. That same day, Trump signed a new executive order to “cut down on regulations and fast-track new licenses for [nuclear] reactors and power plants,” per Reuters. According to the wire service, “Shares of uranium mining companies Uranium Energy…Energy Fuels…and Centrus Energy…jumped between 19.6% and 24.2%” following this announcement. Sam Altman-backed nuclear startup Oklo gained 23.1%. The administration’s new interest in the nuclear industry is spurred in part by increased demand for energy as, “power-hungry data centers dedicated to artificial intelligence and crypto miners plug into the grid.” The nuclear industry is also expected to retain many tax incentives stripped away from green energy initiatives in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill.

3. In yet another instance of the Trump administration going soft on corporate greed, the Republican-controlled Federal Trade Commission has dismissed their case against PepsiCo. As the AP explains, “The lawsuit…alleged that PepsiCo was giving unfair price advantages to Walmart at the expense of other vendors and consumers,” citing the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act, which bans companies from “using promotional incentive payments to favor large customers over smaller ones.” Current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson called the case a “dubious partisan stunt,” in a press release. Former Chair Lina Khan however, called the dismissal “disturbing,” and wrote, “This lawsuit would’ve protected families from paying higher prices at the grocery store and stopped conduct that squeezes small businesses and communities across America. Dismissing it is a gift to giant retailers as they gear up to hike prices.”

4. Instead of utilizing the federal regulatory apparatus to protect consumers and the public, the Trump administration instead continues to weaponize these institutions to target progressive groups. According to Axios, the FTC is “investigating…Media Matters over claims that it and other media advocacy groups coordinated advertising boycotts of Elon Musk's X.” As this report notes, “X [formerly Twitter] sued Media Matters for defamation in 2023 for a report it publicly released that showed ads on X running next to pro-Nazi content. X claimed the report contributed to an advertiser exodus.” While it seems unlikely the social media platform could prevail in such a suit, the suit has effectively cowed the advertising industry, with the World Federation of Advertisers dismantling their Global Alliance for Responsible Media just months after the suit was filed. Media Matters president Angelo Carusone is quoted saying, “The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics…that's exactly what's happening here…These threats won't work; we remain steadfast to our mission.”

5. On Thursday, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez endorsed State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in his bid for Mayor of New York City, POLITICO reports. This endorsement came the morning after the first mayoral primary debate, a rollicking affair featuring nine candidates and including a testy exchange in which the moderators disregarded their own rules to press Mamdani to say whether he believed in “a Jewish state of Israel?” Mamdani responded that he believed Israel has a right to exist “as a state with equal rights.” This from the Times of Israel. In her endorsement, AOC wrote “Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack…In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that.” Ocasio-Cortez said she would rank Adrienne Adams, Brad Lander, Scott Stringer and Zellnor Myrie in that order after Mamdani.

6. Turning to Palestine itself, the Times of Israel reports notorious Biden State Department spokesman Matthew Miller admitted in an interview that, “It is without a doubt true that Israel has committed war crimes” in Gaza. While Miller stops short of accusing the Israeli government of pursuing “a policy of deliberately committing war crimes,” and repeats the tired canard that Hamas resisted ceasefire negotiations, he admits that the Biden administration “could have done [more] to pressure the Israeli government to agree to…[a] ceasefire.” Hopefully, Miller’s admission will help crack the dam of silence and allow the truth to be told about this criminal military campaign.

7. Even as Miller makes this admission, the merciless bombing of Palestinians continues. The Guardian reports “On Sunday, at least 31 Palestinians were killed after Israeli forces opened fire at the site of a food distribution centre in Rafah…On Monday, another three Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire at the same site…And on Tuesday, 27 people were killed after Israeli forces opened fire again, say Gaza officials.” This report continues, citing UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, who said on Tuesday that “Palestinians in Gaza now faced an impossible choice: ‘Die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available.’” Türk added that by attacking civilians, Israel is committing yet more war crimes.

8. Some high-profile activists are taking direct action to deliver food to Gaza. Democracy Now! reports 12 activists aboard The Madleen, part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, have departed from the Italian port of Catania. This group includes Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, actor Liam Cunningham, and Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament. Despite the previous ship being targeted by a drone attack, Thunberg is quoted saying “We deem the risk of silence and the risk of inaction to be so much more deadly than this mission.” Threats to the flotilla continue to pour in. South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, “Hope Greta and her friends can swim!” In Israel itself, IDF spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin ominously stated “we will act accordingly," per FOX News.

9. In more foreign policy news, Gareth Gore – a Washington Post reporter and author of Opus, an exposé of the shadowy Opus Dei sect within the Catholic Church – reports Pope Leo has given Opus Dei six months to “pass comprehensive reforms” and has told the group that if significant changes are not made by December, “necessary measures will be taken.” Gore further reports that in addition to the reforms, “[Pope] Leo has also demanded an investigation into abuse allegations…[including] human trafficking, enslavement…[and] physical and psychological abuse of members.” According to Gore, the reforms were first ordered by Pope Francis in 2022, but “Opus Dei dragged its feet – in the hope the pope would pass away first.” Upon his death, Pope Francis had been on the, “cusp of signing into canon law a huge reform of Opus Dei.” The Vatican was also moving to force a vote on a revised Opus Dei constitution, which was, “quietly cancelled” within hours of Francis’ death. Perhaps most tellingly, Gore reports “The Vatican has privately reassured Opus Dei victims who have long campaigned for justice that they ‘won’t be disappointed’”

10. Finally, a political earthquake has occurred in South Korea. Listeners may remember the failed coup attempt by right-wing former President Yoon Suk Yeol, which culminated in his ouster and could ultimately lead to a sentence of life in prison or even death. Now, the country has elected a new president, Lee Jae-myung, by a margin of 49.4% to 41.2%. Lee, who leads Korea’s Democratic People’s Party, has “endured a barrage of criminal indictments and an assassination attempt,” since losing the last presidential election by a margin of less than 1 per cent, per the Financial Times. Lee is a former factory worker who campaigned in a bulletproof vest after surviving being knifed in the neck last year. The FT notes “Lee…grew up in poverty and suffered [a] permanent injury at the age of 13 when his arm was crushed in a machine at the baseball glove factory where he worked…in 2022 [he] declared his ambition to be a ‘successful Bernie Sanders’.” That said, he has pivoted to the center in his recent political messaging. Beyond the impact of Lee’s election on the future of Korean democracy, his tenure is sure to set a new tone in Korea’s relations with their neighbors including the US, the DPRK, China and Japan.

This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven’t Heard.

This content originally appeared on Ralph Nader Radio Hour and was authored by Ralph Nader.

Heidi Shierholz is the president of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that uses the power of its research on economic trends and on the impact of economic policies to advance reforms that serve working people, deliver racial justice, and guarantee gender equity. In 2021 she became the fourth president EPI has had since its founding in 1986.

We've never seen a budget that so plainly takes from the poor to give to the rich… The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that lower and lower middle-income people will actually lose out. They may get something of a tax break, but they lose benefits. So that on net, their after-tax income will be lower after this bill, while the rich just make out like bandits.

Heidi Shierholz, President of the Economic Policy Institute

The draconian cuts that we are seeing to the safety net are not big enough, because the tax increases are so huge that this bill also increases the deficit dramatically.

Heidi Shierholz

Many folks are calling this the MAGA Murder Bill. They're not wrong. People will die because of the cuts that we're seeing here.

Heidi Shierholz

Robert Hunter is the Director Emeritus of Insurance at the Consumer Federation of America. He has held many positions in the field, both public and private, including being the Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas being the President and Founder of the National Insurance Consumer Organization and served as United States Federal Insurance Administrator.

Decide how much you need. Don't ask for more than you really need. And then once you have it, “I need this much for my car. I need this much if I hit somebody” and so on. And then you get that statistic, and you send it out to several companies and get quotes.

Robert Hunter on buying auto insurance

There isn't any program benefiting the American people that Trump is not cutting in order to turn the country over to the giant corporations and the super-rich. It's basically an overthrow of the government and an overthrow of the rule of law.

Ralph Nader

News 6/6/25

1. On May 23rd, the Trump administration Department of Justice officially announced it had reached an agreement with Boeing to drop its criminal case against the airline manufacturer related to the 2018 and 2019 crashes that killed 346 people, NPR reports. The turnover at the federal government in recent years has prolonged this case; the first Trump administration reached a deferred prosecution agreement with Boeing in 2021, but prosecutors revived the criminal case under President Biden, and as NPR notes, “Boeing agreed last year to plead guilty to defrauding regulators, but a federal judge rejected that proposed plea deal.” Just before the deal was reached, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal penned a letter calling on the DOJ not to “allow [Boeing] to weasel its way out of accountability for its failed corporate culture, and for any illegal behavior that has resulted in deadly consequence,” but this was clearly ignored. Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and former federal judge who, according to NPR, is representing the families of victims for free, said, “This kind of non-prosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history…My families will object and hope to convince the court to reject [the deal]."

2. That same day, Trump signed a new executive order to “cut down on regulations and fast-track new licenses for [nuclear] reactors and power plants,” per Reuters. According to the wire service, “Shares of uranium mining companies Uranium Energy…Energy Fuels…and Centrus Energy…jumped between 19.6% and 24.2%” following this announcement. Sam Altman-backed nuclear startup Oklo gained 23.1%. The administration’s new interest in the nuclear industry is spurred in part by increased demand for energy as, “power-hungry data centers dedicated to artificial intelligence and crypto miners plug into the grid.” The nuclear industry is also expected to retain many tax incentives stripped away from green energy initiatives in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill.

3. In yet another instance of the Trump administration going soft on corporate greed, the Republican-controlled Federal Trade Commission has dismissed their case against PepsiCo. As the AP explains, “The lawsuit…alleged that PepsiCo was giving unfair price advantages to Walmart at the expense of other vendors and consumers,” citing the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act, which bans companies from “using promotional incentive payments to favor large customers over smaller ones.” Current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson called the case a “dubious partisan stunt,” in a press release. Former Chair Lina Khan however, called the dismissal “disturbing,” and wrote, “This lawsuit would’ve protected families from paying higher prices at the grocery store and stopped conduct that squeezes small businesses and communities across America. Dismissing it is a gift to giant retailers as they gear up to hike prices.”

4. Instead of utilizing the federal regulatory apparatus to protect consumers and the public, the Trump administration instead continues to weaponize these institutions to target progressive groups. According to Axios, the FTC is “investigating…Media Matters over claims that it and other media advocacy groups coordinated advertising boycotts of Elon Musk's X.” As this report notes, “X [formerly Twitter] sued Media Matters for defamation in 2023 for a report it publicly released that showed ads on X running next to pro-Nazi content. X claimed the report contributed to an advertiser exodus.” While it seems unlikely the social media platform could prevail in such a suit, the suit has effectively cowed the advertising industry, with the World Federation of Advertisers dismantling their Global Alliance for Responsible Media just months after the suit was filed. Media Matters president Angelo Carusone is quoted saying, “The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics…that's exactly what's happening here…These threats won't work; we remain steadfast to our mission.”

5. On Thursday, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cotez endorsed State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani in his bid for Mayor of New York City, POLITICO reports. This endorsement came the morning after the first mayoral primary debate, a rollicking affair featuring nine candidates and including a testy exchange in which the moderators disregarded their own rules to press Mamdani to say whether he believed in “a Jewish state of Israel?” Mamdani responded that he believed Israel has a right to exist “as a state with equal rights.” This from the Times of Israel. In her endorsement, AOC wrote “Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack…In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that.” Ocasio-Cortez said she would rank Adrienne Adams, Brad Lander, Scott Stringer and Zellnor Myrie in that order after Mamdani.

6. Turning to Palestine itself, the Times of Israel reports notorious Biden State Department spokesman Matthew Miller admitted in an interview that, “It is without a doubt true that Israel has committed war crimes” in Gaza. While Miller stops short of accusing the Israeli government of pursuing “a policy of deliberately committing war crimes,” and repeats the tired canard that Hamas resisted ceasefire negotiations, he admits that the Biden administration “could have done [more] to pressure the Israeli government to agree to…[a] ceasefire.” Hopefully, Miller’s admission will help crack the dam of silence and allow the truth to be told about this criminal military campaign.

7. Even as Miller makes this admission, the merciless bombing of Palestinians continues. The Guardian reports “On Sunday, at least 31 Palestinians were killed after Israeli forces opened fire at the site of a food distribution centre in Rafah…On Monday, another three Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire at the same site…And on Tuesday, 27 people were killed after Israeli forces opened fire again, say Gaza officials.” This report continues, citing UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, who said on Tuesday that “Palestinians in Gaza now faced an impossible choice: ‘Die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available.’” Türk added that by attacking civilians, Israel is committing yet more war crimes.

8. Some high-profile activists are taking direct action to deliver food to Gaza. Democracy Now! reports 12 activists aboard The Madleen, part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, have departed from the Italian port of Catania. This group includes Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, actor Liam Cunningham, and Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament. Despite the previous ship being targeted by a drone attack, Thunberg is quoted saying “We deem the risk of silence and the risk of inaction to be so much more deadly than this mission.” Threats to the flotilla continue to pour in. South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, “Hope Greta and her friends can swim!” In Israel itself, IDF spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin ominously stated “we will act accordingly," per FOX News.

9. In more foreign policy news, Gareth Gore – a Washington Post reporter and author of Opus, an exposé of the shadowy Opus Dei sect within the Catholic Church – reports Pope Leo has given Opus Dei six months to “pass comprehensive reforms” and has told the group that if significant changes are not made by December, “necessary measures will be taken.” Gore further reports that in addition to the reforms, “[Pope] Leo has also demanded an investigation into abuse allegations…[including] human trafficking, enslavement…[and] physical and psychological abuse of members.” According to Gore, the reforms were first ordered by Pope Francis in 2022, but “Opus Dei dragged its feet – in the hope the pope would pass away first.” Upon his death, Pope Francis had been on the, “cusp of signing into canon law a huge reform of Opus Dei.” The Vatican was also moving to force a vote on a revised Opus Dei constitution, which was, “quietly cancelled” within hours of Francis’ death. Perhaps most tellingly, Gore reports “The Vatican has privately reassured Opus Dei victims who have long campaigned for justice that they ‘won’t be disappointed’”

10. Finally, a political earthquake has occurred in South Korea. Listeners may remember the failed coup attempt by right-wing former President Yoon Suk Yeol, which culminated in his ouster and could ultimately lead to a sentence of life in prison or even death. Now, the country has elected a new president, Lee Jae-myung, by a margin of 49.4% to 41.2%. Lee, who leads Korea’s Democratic People’s Party, has “endured a barrage of criminal indictments and an assassination attempt,” since losing the last presidential election by a margin of less than 1 per cent, per the Financial Times. Lee is a former factory worker who campaigned in a bulletproof vest after surviving being knifed in the neck last year. The FT notes “Lee…grew up in poverty and suffered [a] permanent injury at the age of 13 when his arm was crushed in a machine at the baseball glove factory where he worked…in 2022 [he] declared his ambition to be a ‘successful Bernie Sanders’.” That said, he has pivoted to the center in his recent political messaging. Beyond the impact of Lee’s election on the future of Korean democracy, his tenure is sure to set a new tone in Korea’s relations with their neighbors including the US, the DPRK, China and Japan.

This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven’t Heard.

This content originally appeared on Ralph Nader Radio Hour and was authored by Ralph Nader.

No crystal ball was required regarding the eventual sundering of the relationship between Trump and Elon Musk. Here were noisy, brash egos who had formed a rancid union in American politics, with Musk lending his resources and public machinery to The Donald, knowing he could also have sway in the Trump administration as a “special government employee”.  That sway took the form of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), a crude attempt to right the wrongs of misspending in government while politicising the public service. Awaking from a narcotised daze, Musk decided to focus on his floundering companies, notably Tesla, and step back from the inferno. In doing so, he expected “to remain a friend and adviser, and if there’s anything the president wants me to do, I’m at this service.” Gazing at the raging inferno that is Trumpian policy, that convivial attitude has all but evaporated.

For one thing, Trump’s proposed tax breaks and increases in defence spending, espoused in his One Big Beautiful Bill Act, seemed to undermine the very premise of DOGE and its zealous mission of reducing government spending. The legislation promises to slash $1.5 trillion in government spending but increase the debt limit by $4 trillion. “I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,” Musk said in an interview with CBS Sunday Morning last month. Such a plan merely inflated, not reduced, the budget deficit. “I think a bill can be big or beautiful. I don’t know if it can be both.”

This month, Musk became even more irritable. His temper had frayed. “I’m sorry, I just can’t stand it anymore,” he barked on his X platform on June 3. “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.” He continued to heap shame on members of Congress “who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”

On June 5, Trump expressed his disappointment “because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill”, leaving open the possibility that the billionaire might be suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.” Musk had “only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the [electric vehicle] mandate.”

A blow was in the offing, coming in the form of a post on Truth Social: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised Biden didn’t do it!” Musk’s embittered retort: “Such an obvious lie. So sad.” He also proposed, in light of the President’s announcement, the decommissioning of SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft, vehicles used by NASA to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station. The ripples were finally getting violent.

Musk then decided to do what he called dropping “the really big bomb”. Trump, he revealed, “is in the Epstein files. This is the real reason they have not been made public.” Given Musk’s estranged relationship with reality and its facets, this can only be taken at face value. It’s a matter of record that Trump, along with a fat who’s who of power, knew the late Jeffrey Epstein, financier and convicted sex offender, for many years.

The trove of government documents known as The Epstein Files has offered the easily titillated some manna but, thus far, few bombs. On February 27, US Attorney General Pamela Bondi released what were described as the “first phase” of files relating to the financier and “his exploitation of over 250 underage girls at his homes in New York and Florida, among other locations.” In an interview with Fox News on February 21, Bondi revealed that Epstein’s client list lay “on my desk right now.”

Trump’s response to Musk’s latest gobbet of accusation proved almost melancholic. “I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago.” He went on to praise “one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress.”

In characteristically bratty fashion, Musk went on to share a post agreeing with the proposition that Trump be impeached and replaced by the Vice President, J.D. Vance, advocate “a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle” (a touching billionaire’s wish), and predict “a recession in the second half of this year” caused by Trump’s global tariff regime.

In the scheme of things, Trump has survived impeachment, prosecution, litigation, and a divided US electorate that gave him a majority in both the Electoral College and the popular vote.  Like a Teflon-coated mafia don, he has made compromising people a minor art.  Musk, compromised in his support and having second thoughts, can only go noisily into the confused night.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” now before the Senate could result in over 51,000 preventable deaths each year in the United States. That’s according to public health experts at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, who sent a letter warning about the bill’s impact to the Senate Finance Committee. An estimated 16 million people stand to lose their health coverage as a result of the changes in the bill, which “imposes onerous paperwork and fails to safeguard healthcare tax credits,” says Alison Galvani, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling at Yale and one of the signatories to the letter. She also notes universal healthcare would have the opposite effect and save tens of thousands of lives each year. “There are a lot of ways we can improve how expensive our healthcare is, but taking healthcare away from people is not how to do it,” says Galvani.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

That’s because the legislation, which President Donald Trump has dubbed the Big Beautiful Bill, will repeal the vast majority of clean energy provisions contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, which a Democrat-controlled Congress passed in 2022. That earlier law provided a wide array of financial incentives for the deployment of electricity sources like solar, wind, battery storage, and nuclear power, as well as support for consumers looking to buy zero- and low-emissions products like electric vehicles. Choking off support for those measures not only hobbles U.S. efforts to fight climate change — the IRA, if left intact, could single-handedly reduce the country’s carbon emissions by 40 percent — but it also means there are fewer new sources of energy for a country that has started to need more and more of it. And reduced supply coupled with increased demand means higher prices.

That’s the virtually unanimous conclusion of the academics and policy experts who have been trying to understand the likely effects of the rollback for the past few months, though each group of experts used different assumptions about the full extent of IRA repeal, given that the legislation is still currently being revised by the Senate. Part of the reason for this unanimity is that, once constructed, many newer energy sources like wind and solar don’t have substantial operating costs, compared to traditional power plants that must be continuously supplied with fuel.

“Clean electricity has zero generation cost,” said Robbie Orvis, a senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank. “One of the dynamics is that less clean electricity gets built, and that makes power generation more expensive, because we’re relying more frequently on fossil fuels with higher generation costs.”

Orvis’ group calculated that those higher power generation costs from using coal or natural gas, along with other price increases stemming from IRA repeal, would result in household energy costs rising by more than $33 billion annually by 2035, compared to a scenario in which the IRA were left intact. That works out to roughly $250 more per year per household. Other analysts came to similar conclusions: The Rhodium Group, an independent policy analysis firm, estimates that average household costs could be as much as $290 higher per year by the same date. Princeton University’s ZERO Lab projects that energy costs could grow even higher: Their estimates show that, in a decade, annual household prices will be $270 to $415 higher under the GOP plan.

Energy Innovation’s analysis calculated the effects of repealing the IRA on energy bills and transportation costs across the nation. They found that, if the tax credits for clean energy are taken away, utilities will increasingly rely on natural gas and coal, which have higher generation costs. These costs would then be passed on to customers. Additionally, as electric utilities’ demand for natural gas increases, the cost of the fossil fuel in the market will also rise, further raising household energy bills.

“Gas suppliers can’t respond immediately to large changes in the demand for gas,” said Orvis. “The change in gas demand is pretty large without the tax credits. So you’re really increasing the reliance on gas, and therefore, gas demand and gas prices.”

On the transportation front, the legislation passed by the House of Representatives eliminates IRA tax credits for electric vehicles and undoes the nation’s latest tailpipe standards, which limit the amount of pollution that new vehicles are allowed to emit. The result is a greater reliance on gasoline than would happen under the status quo — and more demand for gasoline means higher prices at the pump, per Orvis’ modeling. 

These price spikes — and the electricity spikes in particular — won’t be felt uniformly across the nation. One key factor is how utilities in a state are regulated. Many states have just one utility that both generates power and provides it to electricity customers. But in so-called deregulated markets such as Texas and Pennsylvania, electricity providers compete on an open market to sell their power.

The rules around how utilities calculate and pass on the costs of generating electricity vary significantly between these two models. In regulated markets with just one provider, the cost of generating electricity and getting it to homes is averaged out and passed on to customers. But the competitive nature of deregulated markets means that customers can see wild fluctuations in price. During peak winter and summer, when demand for power is high, prices can be double or triple normal rates. As a result, customers in deregulated markets see more variation in their bills — because those bills closely track changes in the marginal cost of electricity. If those costs rise in a dramatic and systematic way because IRA repeal leads to fewer sources of energy, customers in deregulated markets will feel the full force of it. Customers in regulated markets like much of the Southeast, on the other hand, will be somewhat cushioned from the increase, because their costs reflect the average of all generation and transmission costs incurred by their utility.

“That helps minimize the impact of repealing IRA tax credits — though it also runs the opposite way and helps reduce savings when market prices go down,” said Jesse Jenkins, an associate professor at Princeton University who led the modeling conducted by the ZERO Lab, in an email. 

These rising costs will come on top of U.S. energy bills that are already ticking upward. Electricity prices have been steadily rising since 2020, and the federal Energy Information Administration recently forecasted that that trend is likely to continue through 2026. Prices have increased for a variety of reasons, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupting global oil and gas supply chains, extreme heat and other weather shocks, costly maintenance needed to protected the grid from wildfires, and the buildout of additional capacity to meet growing demand. U.S. electricity demand is beginning to rise for the first time in decades, thanks to the construction of new manufacturing facilities and data centers, which support operations like cloud computing and artificial intelligence, as well as the growing adoption of electric vehicles.

Orvis said that the IRA has been helping meet that demand and maintain the country’s competitive advantage with China, one of the Trump administration’s stated goals. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill would undermine that progress by reducing the amount of energy available for new manufacturing and AI development — and making the electricity that’s left more expensive for everyone.

“The ironic thing is that what’s in the bill, the net results of it will be completely contradictory to what the [Trump] administration’s stated policy priorities are and will cede a lot of the AI development and the manufacturing to China specifically,” said Orvis. “That’s the important macro context for everything that’s happening now — and some of the un-modelable implications in the long run.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill will raise household energy costs on Jun 6, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Naveena Sadasivam.

That’s because the legislation, which President Donald Trump has dubbed the Big Beautiful Bill, will repeal the vast majority of clean energy provisions contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, which a Democrat-controlled Congress passed in 2022. That earlier law provided a wide array of financial incentives for the deployment of electricity sources like solar, wind, battery storage, and nuclear power, as well as support for consumers looking to buy zero- and low-emissions products like electric vehicles. Choking off support for those measures not only hobbles U.S. efforts to fight climate change — the IRA, if left intact, could single-handedly reduce the country’s carbon emissions by 40 percent — but it also means there are fewer new sources of energy for a country that has started to need more and more of it. And reduced supply coupled with increased demand means higher prices.

That’s the virtually unanimous conclusion of the academics and policy experts who have been trying to understand the likely effects of the rollback for the past few months, though each group of experts used different assumptions about the full extent of IRA repeal, given that the legislation is still currently being revised by the Senate. Part of the reason for this unanimity is that, once constructed, many newer energy sources like wind and solar don’t have substantial operating costs, compared to traditional power plants that must be continuously supplied with fuel.

“Clean electricity has zero generation cost,” said Robbie Orvis, a senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank. “One of the dynamics is that less clean electricity gets built, and that makes power generation more expensive, because we’re relying more frequently on fossil fuels with higher generation costs.”

Orvis’ group calculated that those higher power generation costs from using coal or natural gas, along with other price increases stemming from IRA repeal, would result in household energy costs rising by more than $33 billion annually by 2035, compared to a scenario in which the IRA were left intact. That works out to roughly $250 more per year per household. Other analysts came to similar conclusions: The Rhodium Group, an independent policy analysis firm, estimates that average household costs could be as much as $290 higher per year by the same date. Princeton University’s ZERO Lab projects that energy costs could grow even higher: Their estimates show that, in a decade, annual household prices will be $270 to $415 higher under the GOP plan.

Energy Innovation’s analysis calculated the effects of repealing the IRA on energy bills and transportation costs across the nation. They found that, if the tax credits for clean energy are taken away, utilities will increasingly rely on natural gas and coal, which have higher generation costs. These costs would then be passed on to customers. Additionally, as electric utilities’ demand for natural gas increases, the cost of the fossil fuel in the market will also rise, further raising household energy bills.

“Gas suppliers can’t respond immediately to large changes in the demand for gas,” said Orvis. “The change in gas demand is pretty large without the tax credits. So you’re really increasing the reliance on gas, and therefore, gas demand and gas prices.”

On the transportation front, the legislation passed by the House of Representatives eliminates IRA tax credits for electric vehicles and undoes the nation’s latest tailpipe standards, which limit the amount of pollution that new vehicles are allowed to emit. The result is a greater reliance on gasoline than would happen under the status quo — and more demand for gasoline means higher prices at the pump, per Orvis’ modeling. 

These price spikes — and the electricity spikes in particular — won’t be felt uniformly across the nation. One key factor is how utilities in a state are regulated. Many states have just one utility that both generates power and provides it to electricity customers. But in so-called deregulated markets such as Texas and Pennsylvania, electricity providers compete on an open market to sell their power.

The rules around how utilities calculate and pass on the costs of generating electricity vary significantly between these two models. In regulated markets with just one provider, the cost of generating electricity and getting it to homes is averaged out and passed on to customers. But the competitive nature of deregulated markets means that customers can see wild fluctuations in price. During peak winter and summer, when demand for power is high, prices can be double or triple normal rates. As a result, customers in deregulated markets see more variation in their bills — because those bills closely track changes in the marginal cost of electricity. If those costs rise in a dramatic and systematic way because IRA repeal leads to fewer sources of energy, customers in deregulated markets will feel the full force of it. Customers in regulated markets like much of the Southeast, on the other hand, will be somewhat cushioned from the increase, because their costs reflect the average of all generation and transmission costs incurred by their utility.

“That helps minimize the impact of repealing IRA tax credits — though it also runs the opposite way and helps reduce savings when market prices go down,” said Jesse Jenkins, an associate professor at Princeton University who led the modeling conducted by the ZERO Lab, in an email. 

These rising costs will come on top of U.S. energy bills that are already ticking upward. Electricity prices have been steadily rising since 2020, and the federal Energy Information Administration recently forecasted that that trend is likely to continue through 2026. Prices have increased for a variety of reasons, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupting global oil and gas supply chains, extreme heat and other weather shocks, costly maintenance needed to protected the grid from wildfires, and the buildout of additional capacity to meet growing demand. U.S. electricity demand is beginning to rise for the first time in decades, thanks to the construction of new manufacturing facilities and data centers, which support operations like cloud computing and artificial intelligence, as well as the growing adoption of electric vehicles.

Orvis said that the IRA has been helping meet that demand and maintain the country’s competitive advantage with China, one of the Trump administration’s stated goals. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill would undermine that progress by reducing the amount of energy available for new manufacturing and AI development — and making the electricity that’s left more expensive for everyone.

“The ironic thing is that what’s in the bill, the net results of it will be completely contradictory to what the [Trump] administration’s stated policy priorities are and will cede a lot of the AI development and the manufacturing to China specifically,” said Orvis. “That’s the important macro context for everything that’s happening now — and some of the un-modelable implications in the long run.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill will raise household energy costs on Jun 6, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Naveena Sadasivam.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament has confirmed the unprecedented punishments proposed for opposition indigenous Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in protest against the Treaty Principles Bill.

Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi will be suspended for 21 days, and MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke suspended for seven days, taking effect immediately.

Opposition parties tried to reject the recommendation, but did not have the numbers to vote it down.

• READ MORE: NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill haka highlights tensions between Māori tikanga and rules of Parliament
• Other haka reports

Te Pati Maori MPs speak after being suspended.  Video: RNZ/Mark Papalii

The heated debate to consider the proposed punishment came to an end just before Parliament was due to rise.

Waititi moved to close the debate and no party disagreed, ending the possibility of it carrying on in the next sitting week.

Leader of the House Chris Bishop — the only National MP who spoke — kicked off the debate earlier in the afternoon saying it was “regrettable” some MPs did not vote on the Budget two weeks ago.

Bishop had called a vote ahead of Budget Day to suspend the privileges report debate to ensure the Te Pāti Māori MPs could take part in the Budget, but not all of them turned up.

Robust, rowdy debate
The debate was robust and rowdy with both the deputy speaker Barbara Kuriger and temporary speaker Tangi Utikare repeatedly having to ask MPs to quieten down.

Tākuta Ferris spoke first for Te Pāti Māori, saying the haka was a “signal of humanity” and a “raw human connection”.

He said Māori had faced acts of violence for too long and would not be silenced by “ignorance or bigotry”.

“Is this really us in 2025, Aotearoa New Zealand?” he asked the House.

“Everyone can see the racism.”

He said the Privileges Committee’s recommendations were not without precedent, noting the fact Labour MP Peeni Henare, who also participated in the haka, did not face suspension.

Henare attended the committee and apologised, which contributed to his lesser sanction.

‘Finger gun’ gesture
MP Parmjeet Parmar — a member of the Committee — was first to speak on behalf of ACT, and referenced the hand gesture — or “finger gun” — that Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer made in the direction of ACT MPs during the haka.

Parmar told the House debate could be used to disagree on ideas and issues, and there was not a place for intimidating physical gestures.

Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said New Zealand’s Parliament could lead the world in terms of involving the indigenous people.

She said the Green Party strongly rejected the committee’s recommendations and proposed their amendment of removing suspensions, and asked the Te Pāti Māori MPs be censured instead.

Davidson said the House had evolved in the past — such as the inclusion of sign language and breast-feeding in the House.

She said the Greens were challenging the rules, and did not need an apology from Te Pāti Māori.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party speeches so far showed “no sincerity, saying countless haka had taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker.

“They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn’t tell the Speaker did they?

‘Bunch of extremists’
“The Māori party are a bunch of extremists,” Peters said, “New Zealand has had enough of them”.

Peters was made to apologise after taking aim at Waititi, calling him “the one in the cowboy hat” with “scribbles on his face” [in reference to his traditional indigenous moko — tatoo]. He continued afterward, describing Waititi as possessing “anti-Western values”.

Labour’s Willie Jackson congratulated Te Pāti Māori for the “greatest exhibition of our culture in the House in my lifetime”.

Jackson said the Treaty bill was a great threat, and was met by a great haka performance. He was glad the ACT Party was intimidated, saying that was the whole point of doing the haka.

He also called for a bit of compromise from Te Pāti Māori — encouraging them to say sorry — but reiterated Labour’s view the sanctions were out of proportion with past indiscretions in the House.

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the debate “would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious”.

“Get an absolute grip,” she said to the House, arguing the prime minister “is personally responsible” if the House proceeds with the committee’s proposed sanctions.

Eye of the beholder
She accused National’s James Meager of “pointing a finger gun” at her — the same gesture coalition MPs had criticised Ngarewa-Packer for during her haka. The Speaker accepted he had not intended to; Swarbrick said it was an example where the interpretation could be in the eye of the beholder.

She said if the government could “pick a punishment out of thin air” that was “not a democracy”, putting New Zealand in very dangerous territory.

An emotional Maipi-Clarke said she had been silent on the issue for a long time, the party’s voices in haka having sent shockwaves around the world. She questioned whether that was why the MPs were being punished.

“Since when did being proud of your culture make you racist?”

“We will never be silenced, and we will never be lost,” she said, calling the Treaty Principles bill a “dishonourable vote”.

She had apologised to the Speaker and accepted the consequence laid down on the day, but refused to apologise. She listed other incidents in Parliament that resulted in no punishment.

NZ Parliament TV: Te Pāti Māori Privileges committee debate.  Video: RNZ

Maipi-Clarke called for the Treaty of Waitangi to be recognised in the Constitution Act, and for MPs to be required to honour it by law.

‘Clear pathway forward’
“The pathway forward has never been so clear,” she said.

ACT’s Nicole McKee said there were excuses being made for “bad behaviour”, that the House was for making laws and having discussions, and “this is not about the haka, this is about process”.

She told the House she had heard no good ideas from the Te Pāti Māori, who she said resorted to intimidation when they did not get their way, but the MPs needed to “grow up” and learn to debate issues. She hoped 21 days would give them plenty of time to think about their behaviour.

Labour MP and former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe started by saying there were “no winners in this debate”, and it was clear to him it was the government, not the Parliament, handing out the punishments.

He said the proposed sanctions set a precedent for future penalties, and governments might use it as a way to punish opposition, imploring National to think twice.

He also said an apology from Te Pāti Māori would “go a long way”, saying they had a “huge opportunity” to have a legacy in the House, but it was their choice — and while many would agree with the party there were rules and “you can’t have it both ways”.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said there had been many instances of misinterpretations of the haka in the House and said it was unclear why they were being punished, “is it about the haka . . . is about the gun gestures?”

“Not one committee member has explained to us where 21 days came from,” he said.

Hat and ‘scribbles’ response
Waititi took aim at Peters over his comments targeting his hat and “scribbles” on his face.

He said the haka was an elevation of indigenous voice and the proposed punishment was a “warning shot from the colonial state that cannot stomach” defiance.

Waititi said that throughout history when Māori did not play ball, the “coloniser government” reached for extreme sanctions, ending with a plea to voters: “Make this a one-term government, enrol, vote”.

He brought out a noose to represent Māori wrongfully put to death in the past, saying “interpretation is a feeling, it is not a fact . . .  you’ve traded a noose for legislation”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

President Donald Trump is pushing Republican senators to back his “big, beautiful bill,” which includes new funding to carry out his mass deportation agenda by hiring additional ICE officers and adding detention space. ICE has already signed new agreements with jails around the country for additional capacity, and confirmed nine deaths in custody since Trump took office. “It really feels like a paradigm-shifting moment,” says Detention Watch Network executive director Silky Shah. “People are being packed into overcrowded cells. People are not getting medical care. They’re in conditions where they’re languishing. And they’re doing everything they can to expand, expand, expand, both here in the U.S. and also seeing people be now detained in third countries abroad.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

A Papua New Guinea minister has raised concerns about “serious issues” at the PNG-Indonesia border due to a lack of proper security checkpoints.

Culture and Tourism Minister Belden Namah, who is also the member for the border electorate Vanimo-Green, voiced these concerns while supporting a new Biosecurity for Plants and Animals Bill presented in Parliament by Agriculture Minister John Boito.

He said Papua New Guinea was the only country in the Pacific Islands region that shared a land border with another nation.

• READ MORE: Other PNG-Indonesia reports

According to Namah, the absence of proper quarantine and National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority (NAQIA) checks at the border allowed people bringing food and plants from Indonesia to introduce diseases affecting PNG’s commodities.

Minister Namah, whose electorate shares a border with Indonesia, noted that while the PNG Defence Force and police were present, they were primarily focused on checking vehicles coming from Indonesia instead of actively patrolling the borders.

He clarified the roles, saying, “It’s NAQIA’s job to search vehicles and passengers, and the PNGDF’s role is to guard and patrol our borders.”

Namah expressed concern that while bills were passed, enforcement on the ground was lacking.

Minister Namah supported the PNG Biosecurity Authority Bill and called for consistency, increased border security, and stricter control checks.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Connecticut Mirror. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week.

The Connecticut Senate on Friday overwhelmingly passed the most significant reform to the state’s towing policies in decades, a measure lawmakers said would help protect drivers from predatory towing.

House Bill 7162 overhauls the state’s century-old towing statutes and comes in response to an investigation by the Connecticut Mirror and ProPublica that showed how state towing laws have come to favor tow companies at the expense of drivers. It takes several steps to make it harder to tow vehicles from private property and easier for drivers to retrieve their vehicles after a tow.

The bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week with wide bipartisan support and little debate, sailed through the Senate on a 33-3 vote.

“It’s reform that ensures transparency, it ensures fairness and accountability, but does all of this without undercutting the essential work that ethical and professional tow operators do each and every day for us, keeping our roads safe and our properties accessible,” said Transportation Committee Co-chair Sen. Christine Cohen, D-Guilford. “We’ve learned over the years, and particularly over the last year due to some investigative reporting, of some particularly egregious circumstances.”

A spokesperson for Gov. Ned Lamont said the governor plans to sign the bill into law.

Republican Sen. Tony Hwang, ranking member of the Transportation Committee, also spoke in favor of the bill. The bill got about a half hour of debate ahead of passage, and there were no comments in opposition.

Hwang, who represents Fairfield, said the bill strikes the right balance between the interests of towers and consumers.

“I want to acknowledge that our press had an important part to bring out transparency and some of the bad actions, and I think in this bill we address some of those issues,” Hwang said. “We took measures to ensure that there is due process, and what has been discovered to have occurred in a criminal action, I believe, should never, ever happen again, to undermine the trust that we have to have in this process.”

Connecticut’s law allows tow companies to begin the process to sell vehicles after just 15 days. CT Mirror and ProPublica found that it is one of the shortest windows in the nation, and that the law has particularly impacted people with low incomes. Reporters spoke with people who said towing companies required them to pay in cash or wouldn’t allow them to get personal belongings out of their vehicles. Many couldn’t afford to get their towed vehicles back and lost transportation or jobs because of it.

After weeks of negotiations, lawmakers said they came to a compromise with the towing industry. Two bills were merged to include massive reforms to towing procedures from private property and rate increases for highway tows that typically follow car accidents.

The bill that passed and would take effect Oct. 1 requires tow companies to accept credit cards and doesn’t allow them to tow vehicles immediately just because of an expired parking permit or registration. Vehicles can’t be towed from private property without notice unless they’re blocking traffic, fire hydrants or parked in an accessible spot.

Under the bill, towing companies can still start the sales process for vehicles worth $1,500 or less after 15 days, but they would now have to take more steps to give the owner a chance to claim the vehicle. The Department of Motor Vehicles would be required to check whether the driver filed any complaints about the tow before approving the sale, and the tower would have to send a notice ahead of the sale to the registered owner and lienholders via certified mail, with receipts of delivery.

The actual sale couldn’t go through until 30 days after the tow.

The bill also requires that towers take at least two photos before they tow a vehicle — one of the violation that resulted in a tow and another of any damage to the vehicle. Cohen said this would help determine if vehicles had any missing parts before the tow, a seeming nod to the news organizations’ story about a DMV employee who the agency’s investigators found schemed with a towing company to undervalue vehicles and sell them for thousands in profit. (The employee denied he did anything wrong, and the agency ultimately took no action in that case.)

The bill also establishes a working group to study how to handle proceeds from the sales of towed vehicles. State law requires that towing companies hold profits in escrow for a year in case the vehicle owner claims them, then remit that money to the state. But CT Mirror and ProPublica found the DMV never set up a system for that process to occur.

Additionally, it calls for the DMV to work with the state’s attorney general to develop a consumer bill of rights on towing.

Tow companies have to be available after hours and on weekends to allow people to get their vehicles or personal property. In a story published this month, CT Mirror and ProPublica reported that tow truck companies sometimes hold onto people’s belongings to pressure them into paying their towing fees.

Under the new law, drivers will be allowed to retrieve their belongings from their vehicles, even if they haven’t paid the towing fees. State regulations currently allow vehicle owners to retrieve only “personal property which is essential to the health or welfare of any person.”

Cohen listed many of the issues outlined in the news outlets’ reporting as “some of the worst abuses of predatory towing practices.”

Timothy Vibert, president of Towing and Recovery Professionals of Connecticut, said the industry initially opposed the bill because towers believed it would impede their ability to tow cars and clear traffic. He also said towers weren’t involved enough in the original draft. But they worked with lawmakers on the bill over several weeks, and he issued a statement in support this week.

“The people of Connecticut deserve safety, accountability and transparency when their cars are towed, and so do the people who work for Connecticut’s towing companies who risk our lives every day to make our roads safe,” Vibert said. “We all need clear, easy-to-follow rules.”

DMV Commissioner Tony Guerrera commended the House and Senate.

“The DMV fully supports this initiative, as it not only enhances the framework for fair and equitable enforcement of towing laws but also provides a clear path forward for our agency to advance these efforts,” Guerrera said in a statement.

Cohen said that the bill aims to “fix a broken process,” and that lawmakers had worked on some aspects of it for years before the bill passed.

News of the bill’s passage brought relief to Melissa Anderson, who was featured in a CT Mirror and ProPublica story after her car was towed and sold from her Hamden apartment because of an expired parking permit.

The bill requires a 72-hour grace period before a car can be towed for an expired parking sticker to allow people time to get a new one.

“I’m glad we made a difference,” Anderson said. “This is going to help a lot of people.”

The bill next heads to Lamont’s desk.

“The Governor appreciates all the work that went into this legislation, which provides greater protections for the public and their vehicles,” Lamont’s spokesperson, Rob Blanchard, said in a text message. “He plans on signing the legislation once it reaches his desk.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Ginny Monk and Dave Altimari, The Connecticut Mirror.

Tax policy isn’t the only way that this bill proposes to further widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Though the more than 1,000-page megabill will look somewhat different once it advances through the Senate, analysts say that there are three food and agricultural provisions expected to remain intact: an unprecedented cut to the nation’s nutrition programs; an increase of billions in subsidies aimed at industrial farms; and a rescission of some Inflation Reduction Act funding intended to help farmers deal with the impacts of climate change.

If they do, the changes will make it harder for Americans to afford food and endure the financial toll of climate-related disasters. They will also make it more difficult for farmers to adapt to climate change — from an ecological standpoint and an economic one. Overall, the policy shifts would continue Trump’s effort to transform the nation’s food and agricultural policy landscape — from one that keeps at least some emphasis on the country’s neediest residents to one that offers government help to those who need it least.

Ever since the inception of the federal food stamps program in 1939, when it was created during the Great Depression to provide food to the hungry while simultaneously stimulating the American economy by encouraging the purchase of surplus commodities, what’s now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has been falsely portrayed as a contributor to unemployment rates and politicized as an abuse of taxpayer dollars. 

A vast body of research has found the opposite: roughly 42 percent of SNAP recipients are children, more than half of adult recipients who can work are either employed or actively seeking employment; the program’s improper payments are most often merely mistakes made by eligible workers or households, not cases of outright fraud; and the benefits keep millions of Americans out of poverty. 

Right now, more than 40 million Americans are enrolled in SNAP, an anti-hunger program written into the farm bill and administered through the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service. The federal government has always fully paid for benefits issued by the program. States operate the program on a local level, determining eligibility and issuing those benefits, and pay part of the program’s administrative costs. How much money a household gets from the government each month for groceries is based on income, family size, and a tally of certain expenses. An individual’s eligibility is also constrained by “work requirements,” which limit the amount of time adults can receive benefits without employment or participation in a work-training program. 

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cuts to SNAP now being proposed could amount to nearly $300 billion through 2034. An Urban Institute analysis of the bill found that the cuts would be achieved by broadening work requirements to apply to households with children and adults up to the age of 64; limiting states’ ability to request work-requirement waivers for people in high unemployment areas; and reducing the opportunities for discretionary exemptions. But most unprecedented is how the bill shifts the financial onus of SNAP’s costs onto states — increasing the administrative costs states have to cover to up to 75 percent, as well as mandating that states pay for a portion of the benefits themselves. 

If the Senate approves the proposed approach to require states to cover some SNAP costs, the Budget Office report projects that, over the next decade, about 1.3 million people could see their benefits reduced or eliminated in an average month.

The burden of these changes to federal policy would only cascade down, leading to a variety of likely outcomes. Some states might be able to cover the slack. But others won’t, even if they wanted to: Budget-strapped states would then have to choose between reducing benefits or sharing the costs with cities and counties. Ultimately, anti-hunger advocates warn, gutting SNAP will undoubtedly increase food insecurity across the nation — at a time when persistently high food costs are among most Americans’ biggest economic concerns. As communities in all corners of the country endure stronger and more frequent climate-related disasters, the slashing of nutrition programs would also likely decrease the amount of emergency food aid that would be available after a heatwave, hurricane, or flood — funding that has already been reduced by federal disinvestment. 

Sweeping cuts to SNAP would also constrain how much income small farmers nationwide would be able to earn. That’s because SNAP dollars are used at thousands of farmers markets, farm stands, and pick-your-own operations throughout the country. 

Read Next

Trump radically remade the US food system in just 100 days

Ayurella Horn-Muller

Groups like the environmental nonprofit GrowNYC helped launch the use of SNAP dollars at farmers markets in New York almost two decades ago, and have since built matching dollar incentives into their business model to encourage shoppers at the organization’s greenmarket and farmstand locations to spend their monthly food aid allotments on fresh, locally grown produce. 

The program “puts money in the farmers pockets,” said Marcel Van Ooyen, CEO of GrowNYC, and “helps low-income individuals access healthy, fresh, local food. It’s a double-win.” 

He expects to see the bill’s SNAP cuts result in a “devastating” trend of shuttering local farmers’ markets across the nation, which, he said, ”is going to have a real effect both on food access and support of the farming communities.”

While the ethos of this bill can be gleaned by counting up the proposed cuts to social safety nets like SNAP, looking at the legislation from another perspective — where Trump wants the government to spend more — helps to make it clearer. These dramatic changes to nutrition programs would be accompanied by a massive increase in commodity farm subsidies.

The budget bill increases subsidies to commodity farms — ones that grow crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans — by about $50 billion. Commodity farmers “typically have larger farms,” according to Erin Foster West, a policy campaigns director specializing in land, water, and climate at National Young Farmers Coalition. A trend of consolidation toward fewer but more industrial farm operations was already underway. Less than 6 percent of U.S. farms with annual sales of at least $1 million sold more than three-fourths of all agricultural products between 2017 and 2022. The Trump plan might just help that trend along.

Earlier this year, the USDA issued about a third of the $30 billion authorized by Congress in December through the American Relief Act to commodity producers who were affected by low crop prices in 2024. Because the program significantly limited who could access the funding, it funneled financial help away from smaller farmers and into the pockets of industrial-scale operations. An April report by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute concluded the $10 billion bailout for commodity farmers “was probably not justified.” 

Later in their report, the American Enterprise Institute authors note that lobbyists representing commodity farms have already begun pushing for more subsidies because of the fallout of the Trump administration’s tariffs. 

Then they pose a question: “Does the Trump administration need to give farmers further substantial handouts, especially when it is doing nothing for other sectors and households significantly affected by its policy follies?”

The budget bill, with its $50 billion windfall for commodity farms, may be its own answer. 

This September will mark the deadline for the second consecutive year-long extension that Congress passed for the farm bill, the legislation that governs many aspects of America’s food and agricultural systems and is typically reauthorized every five years without much contention. Of late, legislators have been unable to get past the deeply politicized struggle to agree on the omnibus bill’s nutrition and conservation facets. The latest farm bill was the 2018 package.

The farm bill covers everything from nutrition assistance programs to crop subsidies and conservation measures. A number of provisions, like crop insurance, are permanently funded, meaning the reauthorization timeline does not impact them. But others, such as beginning farmer and rancher development grants and local food promotion programs, are entirely dependent upon the appropriations within each new law. 

Trump’s tax plan contains a slick budgeting maneuver that takes unobligated climate-targeted funds from the agricultural conservation programs in President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, and re-invests that money into the same farm bill programs. The funding boost provided by the IRA was designed to reign in the immense emissions footprint of the agricultural industry, while also helping farmers deal with the impacts of climate change by providing funding for them to protect plants from severe weather, extend their growing seasons, or adopt cost-cutting irrigation methods that boost water conservation.

On its surface, the inclusion of unspent IRA conservation money in the tax package may seem promising, if notably at odds with the Trump administration’s public campaign to all but vanquish the Biden-era climate policy. Erin Foster West, at the National Young Farmers Coalition, calls it “a mixed bag.” 

By proposing that the IRA funding be absorbed into the farm bill, Foster West says, Trump creates an opportunity to build more and longer-term funding for “hugely impactful and very effective” conservation work. On the other hand, she notes, the Trump megabill removes the requirements that the unspent pot of money must fund climate-specific projects. Foster West is wary that the removal of the climate guardrails could lead to more conservation money funneling into industrial farms and planet-polluting animal feeding operations. 

The House budget package also omits many of the food and agricultural programs affected by the federal funding freeze that would typically have been included in a farm bill. Those include programs offering support to beginning farmers and ranchers, farmer-led sustainable research, rural development and farm loans, local and regional food supply chains, and those that help farmers access new markets. None of these were incorporated into the Republican megabill. 

“It’s just a disinvestment in the programs that smaller-scale, and beginning farmers, younger farmers, tend to use. So we’re just seeing, like, resources being pulled away,” said Foster West. 

Moreover, up until now, several agricultural leaders in Congress have expressed confidence about passing a new “skinny” farm bill, to address all programs left out by reconciliation, before September. Provisions in the Trump budget bill may erode that confidence. By gutting funding for SNAP and increasing funding for commodity support, two leading Republican farm bill priorities, the need for GOP legislators to negotiate for a bipartisan bill diminishes. 

Inherent to the farm bill are provisions set to incentivize Congress to break through its own gridlock. If neither a new farm bill nor an extension is passed ahead of its deadline, some commodity programs revert to a 1930s and 1940s law, which helps trigger what is colloquially known as the “dairy cliff” — after which the government must buy staggering volumes of milk products at a parity price set in 1949 and risk spiking milk prices at the supermarket. Trump’s tax package would suspend this trigger until 2031.

Under Trump’s vision, encoded in the tax bill, U.S. food and agriculture policy would “cannibalize” itself, according to Mike Lavender, policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. The policies meant to make better food more available to more people, and support the producers that grow it, in other words, could make way for a world in which fewer people will be able to farm — and to eat.

“It’s an irresponsible approach to federal food and farm policy,” Lavender said. “One that does not support all farmers, does not support the entire food and farm system.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s budget bill is on the verge of transforming how America eats on May 30, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Ayurella Horn-Muller.

When you think of Feb. 14 do you think of Valentine’s Day? On Feb. 14, 2022, the University of Texas at Austin Faculty Council adopted a fateful resolution affirming that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” (doc. 19141). Little did they realize that their forthright declaration of a principle old as Plato would be waved around like a bloody shirt. Republican politicians went hunting for Socrates.

Three years later, on Apr. 15, 2025, the Lt. Governor of Texas was still denouncing the “rogue faculty senate at the University of Texas” because it had “foolishly questioned the Texas Legislature’s authority over higher education” (ltgov.texas.gov).

But before we get into the story of the Valentine’s Day resolution or how it is being torched by Republican politicians, it is important to note that the Lt. Governor’s 2025 attack on the 2022 resolution commits the ethical fallacy of mistaking ought for is, right for might.

The Valentine’s Day resolution was an argument about what should be done: politicians should not assert authority over teaching, and faculty should be expected to “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” The Lt. Governor, on the other hand, rebuked the faculty council for questioning a fact that they did not question: “the Texas legislature’s authority over higher education.”

Why would the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopt a long argument that politicians should not interfere in college teaching if the council was assuming that politicians did not have the power to interfere? In fact, as we will see, the UT-Austin Faculty Council had very good reasons to believe that the legislature was going to try to interfere with faculty scholarship and teaching, as happened soon enough.

Mature wisdom lies on the side of the faculty in this preview debate. It makes little sense to argue that politicians should tell college faculty what to teach or how to teach it. The UT-Austin faculty were right to declare that they would “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” Little did they know that their Valentine’s Day resolution would serve as a pretext to firehose faculty and douse the flames of civil rights progress, not only at their campus, but all across their great state.

*****

With about one week left to go before the end of the 2025 regular session, the Texas Legislature is preparing to join the Lt. Governor’s call to continue punishing faculty and their councils (also known as senates). Determined to drill Texas faculty in lessons they will not be able to “stand firm against,” the Lt. Governor in his capacity as president of the Texas Senate, is urging passage of Senate Bill 37, a law that would abolish faculty councils as we know them by Sept. 1.

The Lt. Governor is already boasting credit for “significantly weakened tenure” in Texas, following the passage of SB 18 in 2023. He counts the attack on tenure as part of “the largest pushback against wokeness in higher education in U.S. history,” an offensive that also included the passage of SB 17 in 2023 that relentlessly banned diversity, equity, and inclusion activities on campus.

Now he wants to crush faculty governance, too. In place of existing councils elected by faculty, SB 37 would require college presidents to appoint at least one member to the council from each college or school and then name the primary officers of the council (“a presiding officer, associate presiding officer, and secretary from the members.”)

Furthermore, among more than 20 pages of provisions in SB 37, college trustees will newly be required to “approve or deny the hiring of” deans or chief academic officers (commonly known as provosts). Collegial norms of shared governance usually treat the position of dean or provost as a matter for college presidents to decide “with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty” (AAUP Redbook 11^th 119).

Under SB 37’s takeover of faculty councils, the provost, in turn, would be charged with identifying council members who are guilty of “misconduct,” and if the president agrees with the provost, a faculty council member shall be summarily removed from the council.

The general effect of SB 37 is to increase the authority of politically appointed trustees into spheres of academic operations so that influence flows more smoothly from the governor’s desk. Recent revisions to the bill would even require at least two trustees to serve on presidential search committees. Furthermore, the governor would appoint a statewide higher ed ombudsman who will take complaints, conduct investigations, and refer cases to the state auditor or legislature, including recommendations to withhold funding.

Among the many professional indignities that SB 37 will inflict upon faculty across Texas is the provision that strikes their right to serve on faculty grievance reviews. The president and provost will then have sole authority over faculty grievances. Prohibiting faculty representation during grievance reviews contradicts professional standards of the American Association of University Professors, which assumes the existence of faculty grievance committees, and which states that “In collegial work environments, due process includes an opportunity for peer participation in the review process” (AAUP Redbook 11th 215).

According to the Lt. Governor, the extreme undoing of faculty shared governance in Texas is necessary because “senates must have a clearly defined role at our universities.” What role is that? According to the Lt. Governor, “faculty senates generally serve a purpose and help Boards of Regents make critical decisions impacting university students in Texas.” But apparently, this role does not include issuing Valentine’s Day resolutions which assert faculty responsibility for teaching or that declare faculty resistance against external pressure in the classroom.

Once again, mature wisdom would counsel the Lt. Governor that he is correct to say that “senates must have a clearly defined role.” However, there is a critical flaw in his selection of the Senate that is out of bounds. And he still has time in the coming week to reign in the senate that is running amok.

*****

Historical tragedies like SB 37 have backstories. In his Apology, Socrates explained to the jury how the accusations against him resulted from long simmering attitudes about his vocation and political choices. Likewise, behind the world-historical clampdown now being imposed on Texas college campuses, we find grudges against civil rights and academic freedom that have been ripening for years.

When the Valentine’s Day resolution of the UT-Austin Faculty Council publicly affirmed “the rights and academic freedom of faculty to design courses, curriculum, and pedagogy, and to conduct related scholarly research,” they were hoping to immunize their community against political attacks. “More specifically,” the 2022 resolution warned that “state legislative proposals seeking to limit teaching and discussions of racism and related issues have been proposed and enacted in several states, including Texas.” Mindful of attacks already underway, the resolution affirmed “the fundamental rights of faculty to academic freedom in its broadest sense, inclusive of research and teaching of race and gender theory” (doc. 19141).

The Valentine’s Day resolution was presented to the council by the Pharmacy professor who chaired the faculty Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that drafted the resolution. Minutes of the meeting report that the resolution was “co-sponsored and endorsed by the University Faculty Gender Equity Council (UFGEC), the Council for LGBTQ+ Access, Equity, and Inclusion (Q+AEI), the Council for Racial and Ethnic Equity and Diversity, and the Faculty Council Executive Committee” (doc. 19152).

Broad outlines of the UT faculty resolution followed a “Template for Academic Freedom” that was published in 2021 by the American Association of University Professors, PEN, the American Historical Association, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and then endorsed and adopted by numerous reputable groups and faculty senates, all of whom were concerned about growing right-wing attacks on academic freedom.

The “Template Academic Senate Resolution,” finalized on Sept. 21, 2021, and posted to Google Docs, made an attempt to stand fast against the swift backlash that was sweeping the nation following the global protests against the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. The Texas legislature led the backlash to closely monitor what could or could not be taught about racism in America. When the Texas Governor signed HB 3979 on June 15, 2021, he issued a terse signing statement that called the bill “a strong move to abolish critical race theory in Texas.” He vowed that “more must be done,” and he promised to add the issue to the summer’s special session agenda (gov.texas.gov).

*****

One year to the day before the Texas Governor signed the bill banning what he called “critical race theory” in public schools, and two years before the Valentine’s Day resolution, the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopted an updated statement on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” Passed unanimously by the 55 voting members present, the refreshed statement pledged “to provide equitable access and inclusion in all our activities” (doc. 18263). Although the language had been approved by the council’s executive committee on May 15, 2020, ten days before the murder of Houston Native Son George Floyd, the widescale protests of June 2020 made the timing seem momentous.

Minutes of the June 15, 2020, faculty council meeting are worth quoting at length, because, as the book of Proverbs advises, “let the wise listen and add to their learning” (Prov. 1:5). The council minutes presented below have been edited to remove personal names, just as we have done with the Governor and Lt. Governor above:

The University President discussed racial equity, diversity, and inclusion in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many other Black people. Central leadership has put out a statement and are meeting with the various groups that have made requests for action, including student athletes, other student groups, the Precursors, and other alumni groups. The President said, “I want to listen to them and hear what they’re feeling, what they’re seeing, what their priorities are, and work together…on our set of actions.” He has been working with the Vice President for Diversity and Community Engagement and the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement (DDCE) to reconsider the University’s Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan. Additionally, they have been working with the Vice Provost for Diversity and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost on faculty diversity, and the President and Provost are “nearing adoption of the plan that was brought forward.” Recent reports from the Campus Contextualization Committee will inform how they think about physical aspects of the campus. The President shared a conversation he had with a Black student leader who described “all the little ways that it was difficult to feel like she fully belonged.” A minority student taking a campus tour pulled her aside to ask, “What’s it really like here at UT?” Her response: “It’s really hard, but it’s worth it.” The President said his exchange with that Black student leader “hit me,” and he thought “we can do better” by recruiting diverse talent, making sure they enjoy their UT Austin experience, and ensuring they feel empowered to contribute.

The Faculty Council Chair Elect thanked the many participants involved in revising the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement, which was then presented by a Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies. The Professor said that, in 2018, UT Austin adopted a diversity statement for the first time, but a number of constituencies on campus felt the statement was “not particularly inclusive.” The new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement addresses the issue of inclusivity in the second paragraph: “The University is dedicated to attracting highly qualified students, faculty, and staff of all races, ethnicities, peoples, nationalities, religious backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, socioeconomic statuses, disabilities and health histories regardless of their marital, parental, age, veteran, or citizenship status.” A Professor of English proposed an amendment to change “provide” to “providing” in the first sentence, which the FCEC accepted.

A Professor of Classics shared the story of James Reeb, a Protestant minister killed in Selma, who “believed that it was impossible for White people who were in comfortable living situations to do anything for the Black minorities while still living where they were living.” He related this insight to “what we’re doing here with this diversity statement,” adding that the statement “will only have meaning if the resources and the commitment are there to really do something.” He added that the percentage of Black students at UT Austin “never varies from somewhere around 4 percent in a state where there are 13 percent African Americans.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies remarked that “only about 42 percent of the student population is White,” but agreed that Professor of Classic’s “basic observation is absolutely correct.” He asked, “Why hasn’t the White majority [at UT Austin] changed things so that…we don’t have the problems that we have? I think it’s a challenge for all of us.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies agreed that more action is necessary, but reasoned that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement would set goals, aspirations, and principles to which UT Austin could be held. A Senior Lecturer in Management seconded the Professor of Classic’s concern that a new diversity statement on its own would not solve the problem. He said, “If we’re going to do something, we have to make a commitment to being able to recruit in the marketplace, and the marketplace is more competitive than we’ve ever seen.”

A Clinical Professor from the School of Law suggested that the word “opportunities,” be switched to “access” since the phrase “equal opportunities” in terms of education has come to stand for the narrow hypothesis that students can simply be given a “level starting place” and then “the rest is just…so-called meritocracy.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies said he would be in favor of changing the wording. Chair of Staff Council and Executive Assistant for the McDonald Observatory said calling UT Austin a “campus” in the last sentence risks overlooking colleagues who work in physical areas other than the 40 Acres. The Faculty Council Chair responded that, from one perspective, “campus is everything.”

An Associate Professor from the School of Design and Creative Technologies suggested changing “on a diverse campus” to “at a diverse University” to address the concern about excluding parts of UT Austin not within the 40 Acres. She also proposed that the last sentence read “learning and working on a diverse campus” instead of “learning on a diverse campus” to emphasize the important role played by staff. The Faculty Council Chair said the 2018 diversity statement focused on students, but the new statement has been expanded to explicitly include staff and facility. The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies supported changing the wording. The Faculty Council Chair noted that “this is not the final version”; it will be forwarded to “many, many other groups and administration offices” after being voted on by Faculty Council.

The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies closed by saying, “coming together as a University community around these kinds of commitments and statements is particularly important at this time.”

The Faculty Council unanimously approved the proposed new UT Austin Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement. (Doc. 18300)

The wide representation of faculty, staff, and administration voices resonated with a national awakening that was rolling across the world in June of 2020. Language of the resolution stipulated that “Final approval resides with the President” (doc. 18263). Momentum of the 2020 faculty council meeting is worth remembering, the way we cherish the last few seconds of life and love before the family van gets smashed by a rogue truck.

*****

A Jan. 2025 interim report by the Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee alleged that: “Following the political unrest in the summer of 2020, a small group of extremists sought to seize the opportunity to transform public institutions – with the goal of reshaping Texas universities into institutions focused on social justice and equality of outcome” (p. 9). And this is the dark alchemy of how one Texas Senate interim report, signed by three members of a five member subcommittee, came to rebrand June 2020 as a time of “political unrest” and to infer that a gathering at that time of faculty, staff, vice presidents, and the president of UT Austin was but “a small group of extremists.”

The Texas Senate subcommittee interim report of 2025 went on to stipulate that “several legislators received reports from constituents and stakeholders across the state detailing curriculum and course content related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) throughout Texas public institutions.” The lawmakers could have pointed out that the law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus (SB 17) specifically protected classroom teaching. However, in the eyes of the Senate Interim Subcommittee lawmakers, reports about course content were judged to evidence unseemly disrespect for their work: “Though this does not explicitly violate the letter of the law, it contradicts its spirit and does not reflect the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” (p. 33).

SB 37 was therefore crafted in 2025 to compel a new “spirit” of compliance in Texas Higher Education. The spirit of the ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion mandated by SB 17 was not being fully assimilated throughout Texas college classrooms. Faculty council meetings like the ones that happened in June 2020 or Valentine’s Day 2022 would not happen again if trustees, appointed by the governor, could be empowered to more closely supervise the selection of presidents, provosts, and deans; if, in turn, presidents could be empowered to appoint a significant share of faculty council members along with all three of their presiding officers; and if, finally, presidents and provosts would be given sole authority to remove faculty council members from their seats.

SB 37 ensures that a spirit of uncontradicted compliance shall emanate from the high source of the Texas Governor’s office down through faculty councils and into the entire curriculum of Texas higher education, fully satisfying what the Senate Subcommittee Interim Triumverate characterized as “the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” alike.

*****

Two years after the George Floyd moment, and eight months after the Texas Governor signed the ban against “critical race theory” in public schools, the Valentine’s Day resolution of 2022 was a conscious attempt to rescue civil rights and academic freedom from the disaster that threatens them today. The resolution was debated in an open meeting, where dissent was duly reported in the minutes.

An associate professor of Finance accused the council of requiring “adherence to critical race theory….  and now you are complaining about this hypothetical threat that there might be a ban.” He complained that the council resolution did not make mention of the Chicago Statement or the Kelven Report which encouraged institutions to remain neutral and abstain from “declaring a collective opinion on political and social issues” (goacta.org). Minutes report that his dissent concluded with the declaration that the legislature “did not give you autonomy so you could turn our school into a social justice indoctrination camp. They absolutely should be monitoring this.” Two responses are recorded in the minutes.

A professor of Human Development and Family Science argued that the council resolution did not compel faculty to take any particular positions regarding race or gender theory, but “those people who do research on these areas, historians who have been studying the historical impacts of racism, they have the expertise … and they should have the right to be able to speak about it.”

And a professor who served on the drafting committee argued that the resolution received unanimous support from the committee “after considerable work and thought and interaction with people of other universities.” Citing the great American rule of resistance, that “we have all got to hang together or we will all hang separately,” the professor of Integrative Biology warned that: “It is critical race theory today. It is going to be … climate change or evolution tomorrow, so it affects all of us.” Minutes reflect that the resolution passed “by majority vote: forty-three in favor, five against, and three abstaining” (doc. 19152).

*****

A moral cyclone of backlash is howling to punish Texas faculty for their so-called “wokeness.” When the House Higher Education Committee heard testimony regarding the anti-tenure bill (SB 18) in 2023, long hours produced not a single witness in its favor. Not one. Yet the committee approved the bill that the Lt. Governor now brags about passing because it significantly weakens tenure.

Similarly, this year, the Texas AAUP counts about three witnesses speaking for SB 37, but 300 witnesses against, a ratio of 100-to-one “Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” pleading with Texas politicians that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” in Texas. But once again, the fix was in, the railroad operation blared full steam ahead, and the bill was adopted by the committee along party lines, with Republicans in control.

Finally, under the afternoon light of a simmering Texas sun, on May 24, 2025, when SB 37 was being debated in the Texas House of Representatives, Republicans made it a point to drown out the debate under a crescendo of bar car chatter. The chair of the House tried to gavel them to order. The Democrat who held the floor yelled “shut up!” But the House Republicans, who are on record for mandating orderly classrooms in public schools, could not be bothered to stop talking over the debate.

Voices of faculty and their friends in Texas have been scattered against shrill winds of power. Barring a miracle of conscience, the Lt. Governor’s kneecap campaign will be soon visiting a Texas campus near you. Don’t get caught out supporting civil rights, academic freedom, or social justice. And be sure to get your faculty council opinions realigned with the ruling party in Texas, or there will be hell to pay.

BTW: When I think of Feb. 14 I think of the birthday of Frederick Douglass, author of the term “moral cyclone” who was born into bondage as the property of his father. The term “moral cyclone” is an unexaggerated metaphor for the way Texas faculty will soon be reborn as an intellectual labor force in service to Texas politicians who are eager to crack their power whips against any professor “foolish” enough to “stand firm” against the brazen dictates of a newly revised Texas Education Code. Altogether, Feb. 14th has become a mixed-up metaphor for the passion that joins the love of wisdom to the struggle for a democratic outcome, and only by the grace of God will it turn out differently this year than it did for Socrates back when.

*****

NOTE: SB 37 provisions described above reflect the latest updates reported in the House Higher Education Committee Substitute as of press time.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Moses.

When you think of Feb. 14 do you think of Valentine’s Day? On Feb. 14, 2022, the University of Texas at Austin Faculty Council adopted a fateful resolution affirming that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” (doc. 19141). Little did they realize that their forthright declaration of a principle old as Plato would be waved around like a bloody shirt. Republican politicians went hunting for Socrates.

Three years later, on Apr. 15, 2025, the Lt. Governor of Texas was still denouncing the “rogue faculty senate at the University of Texas” because it had “foolishly questioned the Texas Legislature’s authority over higher education” (ltgov.texas.gov).

But before we get into the story of the Valentine’s Day resolution or how it is being torched by Republican politicians, it is important to note that the Lt. Governor’s 2025 attack on the 2022 resolution commits the ethical fallacy of mistaking ought for is, right for might.

The Valentine’s Day resolution was an argument about what should be done: politicians should not assert authority over teaching, and faculty should be expected to “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” The Lt. Governor, on the other hand, rebuked the faculty council for questioning a fact that they did not question: “the Texas legislature’s authority over higher education.”

Why would the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopt a long argument that politicians should not interfere in college teaching if the council was assuming that politicians did not have the power to interfere? In fact, as we will see, the UT-Austin Faculty Council had very good reasons to believe that the legislature was going to try to interfere with faculty scholarship and teaching, as happened soon enough.

Mature wisdom lies on the side of the faculty in this preview debate. It makes little sense to argue that politicians should tell college faculty what to teach or how to teach it. The UT-Austin faculty were right to declare that they would “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” Little did they know that their Valentine’s Day resolution would serve as a pretext to firehose faculty and douse the flames of civil rights progress, not only at their campus, but all across their great state.

*****

With about one week left to go before the end of the 2025 regular session, the Texas Legislature is preparing to join the Lt. Governor’s call to continue punishing faculty and their councils (also known as senates). Determined to drill Texas faculty in lessons they will not be able to “stand firm against,” the Lt. Governor in his capacity as president of the Texas Senate, is urging passage of Senate Bill 37, a law that would abolish faculty councils as we know them by Sept. 1.

The Lt. Governor is already boasting credit for “significantly weakened tenure” in Texas, following the passage of SB 18 in 2023. He counts the attack on tenure as part of “the largest pushback against wokeness in higher education in U.S. history,” an offensive that also included the passage of SB 17 in 2023 that relentlessly banned diversity, equity, and inclusion activities on campus.

Now he wants to crush faculty governance, too. In place of existing councils elected by faculty, SB 37 would require college presidents to appoint at least one member to the council from each college or school and then name the primary officers of the council (“a presiding officer, associate presiding officer, and secretary from the members.”)

Furthermore, among more than 20 pages of provisions in SB 37, college trustees will newly be required to “approve or deny the hiring of” deans or chief academic officers (commonly known as provosts). Collegial norms of shared governance usually treat the position of dean or provost as a matter for college presidents to decide “with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty” (AAUP Redbook 11^th 119).

Under SB 37’s takeover of faculty councils, the provost, in turn, would be charged with identifying council members who are guilty of “misconduct,” and if the president agrees with the provost, a faculty council member shall be summarily removed from the council.

The general effect of SB 37 is to increase the authority of politically appointed trustees into spheres of academic operations so that influence flows more smoothly from the governor’s desk. Recent revisions to the bill would even require at least two trustees to serve on presidential search committees. Furthermore, the governor would appoint a statewide higher ed ombudsman who will take complaints, conduct investigations, and refer cases to the state auditor or legislature, including recommendations to withhold funding.

Among the many professional indignities that SB 37 will inflict upon faculty across Texas is the provision that strikes their right to serve on faculty grievance reviews. The president and provost will then have sole authority over faculty grievances. Prohibiting faculty representation during grievance reviews contradicts professional standards of the American Association of University Professors, which assumes the existence of faculty grievance committees, and which states that “In collegial work environments, due process includes an opportunity for peer participation in the review process” (AAUP Redbook 11th 215).

According to the Lt. Governor, the extreme undoing of faculty shared governance in Texas is necessary because “senates must have a clearly defined role at our universities.” What role is that? According to the Lt. Governor, “faculty senates generally serve a purpose and help Boards of Regents make critical decisions impacting university students in Texas.” But apparently, this role does not include issuing Valentine’s Day resolutions which assert faculty responsibility for teaching or that declare faculty resistance against external pressure in the classroom.

Once again, mature wisdom would counsel the Lt. Governor that he is correct to say that “senates must have a clearly defined role.” However, there is a critical flaw in his selection of the Senate that is out of bounds. And he still has time in the coming week to reign in the senate that is running amok.

*****

Historical tragedies like SB 37 have backstories. In his Apology, Socrates explained to the jury how the accusations against him resulted from long simmering attitudes about his vocation and political choices. Likewise, behind the world-historical clampdown now being imposed on Texas college campuses, we find grudges against civil rights and academic freedom that have been ripening for years.

When the Valentine’s Day resolution of the UT-Austin Faculty Council publicly affirmed “the rights and academic freedom of faculty to design courses, curriculum, and pedagogy, and to conduct related scholarly research,” they were hoping to immunize their community against political attacks. “More specifically,” the 2022 resolution warned that “state legislative proposals seeking to limit teaching and discussions of racism and related issues have been proposed and enacted in several states, including Texas.” Mindful of attacks already underway, the resolution affirmed “the fundamental rights of faculty to academic freedom in its broadest sense, inclusive of research and teaching of race and gender theory” (doc. 19141).

The Valentine’s Day resolution was presented to the council by the Pharmacy professor who chaired the faculty Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that drafted the resolution. Minutes of the meeting report that the resolution was “co-sponsored and endorsed by the University Faculty Gender Equity Council (UFGEC), the Council for LGBTQ+ Access, Equity, and Inclusion (Q+AEI), the Council for Racial and Ethnic Equity and Diversity, and the Faculty Council Executive Committee” (doc. 19152).

Broad outlines of the UT faculty resolution followed a “Template for Academic Freedom” that was published in 2021 by the American Association of University Professors, PEN, the American Historical Association, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and then endorsed and adopted by numerous reputable groups and faculty senates, all of whom were concerned about growing right-wing attacks on academic freedom.

The “Template Academic Senate Resolution,” finalized on Sept. 21, 2021, and posted to Google Docs, made an attempt to stand fast against the swift backlash that was sweeping the nation following the global protests against the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. The Texas legislature led the backlash to closely monitor what could or could not be taught about racism in America. When the Texas Governor signed HB 3979 on June 15, 2021, he issued a terse signing statement that called the bill “a strong move to abolish critical race theory in Texas.” He vowed that “more must be done,” and he promised to add the issue to the summer’s special session agenda (gov.texas.gov).

*****

One year to the day before the Texas Governor signed the bill banning what he called “critical race theory” in public schools, and two years before the Valentine’s Day resolution, the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopted an updated statement on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” Passed unanimously by the 55 voting members present, the refreshed statement pledged “to provide equitable access and inclusion in all our activities” (doc. 18263). Although the language had been approved by the council’s executive committee on May 15, 2020, ten days before the murder of Houston Native Son George Floyd, the widescale protests of June 2020 made the timing seem momentous.

Minutes of the June 15, 2020, faculty council meeting are worth quoting at length, because, as the book of Proverbs advises, “let the wise listen and add to their learning” (Prov. 1:5). The council minutes presented below have been edited to remove personal names, just as we have done with the Governor and Lt. Governor above:

The University President discussed racial equity, diversity, and inclusion in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many other Black people. Central leadership has put out a statement and are meeting with the various groups that have made requests for action, including student athletes, other student groups, the Precursors, and other alumni groups. The President said, “I want to listen to them and hear what they’re feeling, what they’re seeing, what their priorities are, and work together…on our set of actions.” He has been working with the Vice President for Diversity and Community Engagement and the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement (DDCE) to reconsider the University’s Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan. Additionally, they have been working with the Vice Provost for Diversity and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost on faculty diversity, and the President and Provost are “nearing adoption of the plan that was brought forward.” Recent reports from the Campus Contextualization Committee will inform how they think about physical aspects of the campus. The President shared a conversation he had with a Black student leader who described “all the little ways that it was difficult to feel like she fully belonged.” A minority student taking a campus tour pulled her aside to ask, “What’s it really like here at UT?” Her response: “It’s really hard, but it’s worth it.” The President said his exchange with that Black student leader “hit me,” and he thought “we can do better” by recruiting diverse talent, making sure they enjoy their UT Austin experience, and ensuring they feel empowered to contribute.

The Faculty Council Chair Elect thanked the many participants involved in revising the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement, which was then presented by a Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies. The Professor said that, in 2018, UT Austin adopted a diversity statement for the first time, but a number of constituencies on campus felt the statement was “not particularly inclusive.” The new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement addresses the issue of inclusivity in the second paragraph: “The University is dedicated to attracting highly qualified students, faculty, and staff of all races, ethnicities, peoples, nationalities, religious backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, socioeconomic statuses, disabilities and health histories regardless of their marital, parental, age, veteran, or citizenship status.” A Professor of English proposed an amendment to change “provide” to “providing” in the first sentence, which the FCEC accepted.

A Professor of Classics shared the story of James Reeb, a Protestant minister killed in Selma, who “believed that it was impossible for White people who were in comfortable living situations to do anything for the Black minorities while still living where they were living.” He related this insight to “what we’re doing here with this diversity statement,” adding that the statement “will only have meaning if the resources and the commitment are there to really do something.” He added that the percentage of Black students at UT Austin “never varies from somewhere around 4 percent in a state where there are 13 percent African Americans.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies remarked that “only about 42 percent of the student population is White,” but agreed that Professor of Classic’s “basic observation is absolutely correct.” He asked, “Why hasn’t the White majority [at UT Austin] changed things so that…we don’t have the problems that we have? I think it’s a challenge for all of us.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies agreed that more action is necessary, but reasoned that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement would set goals, aspirations, and principles to which UT Austin could be held. A Senior Lecturer in Management seconded the Professor of Classic’s concern that a new diversity statement on its own would not solve the problem. He said, “If we’re going to do something, we have to make a commitment to being able to recruit in the marketplace, and the marketplace is more competitive than we’ve ever seen.”

A Clinical Professor from the School of Law suggested that the word “opportunities,” be switched to “access” since the phrase “equal opportunities” in terms of education has come to stand for the narrow hypothesis that students can simply be given a “level starting place” and then “the rest is just…so-called meritocracy.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies said he would be in favor of changing the wording. Chair of Staff Council and Executive Assistant for the McDonald Observatory said calling UT Austin a “campus” in the last sentence risks overlooking colleagues who work in physical areas other than the 40 Acres. The Faculty Council Chair responded that, from one perspective, “campus is everything.”

An Associate Professor from the School of Design and Creative Technologies suggested changing “on a diverse campus” to “at a diverse University” to address the concern about excluding parts of UT Austin not within the 40 Acres. She also proposed that the last sentence read “learning and working on a diverse campus” instead of “learning on a diverse campus” to emphasize the important role played by staff. The Faculty Council Chair said the 2018 diversity statement focused on students, but the new statement has been expanded to explicitly include staff and facility. The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies supported changing the wording. The Faculty Council Chair noted that “this is not the final version”; it will be forwarded to “many, many other groups and administration offices” after being voted on by Faculty Council.

The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies closed by saying, “coming together as a University community around these kinds of commitments and statements is particularly important at this time.”

The Faculty Council unanimously approved the proposed new UT Austin Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement. (Doc. 18300)

The wide representation of faculty, staff, and administration voices resonated with a national awakening that was rolling across the world in June of 2020. Language of the resolution stipulated that “Final approval resides with the President” (doc. 18263). Momentum of the 2020 faculty council meeting is worth remembering, the way we cherish the last few seconds of life and love before the family van gets smashed by a rogue truck.

*****

A Jan. 2025 interim report by the Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee alleged that: “Following the political unrest in the summer of 2020, a small group of extremists sought to seize the opportunity to transform public institutions – with the goal of reshaping Texas universities into institutions focused on social justice and equality of outcome” (p. 9). And this is the dark alchemy of how one Texas Senate interim report, signed by three members of a five member subcommittee, came to rebrand June 2020 as a time of “political unrest” and to infer that a gathering at that time of faculty, staff, vice presidents, and the president of UT Austin was but “a small group of extremists.”

The Texas Senate subcommittee interim report of 2025 went on to stipulate that “several legislators received reports from constituents and stakeholders across the state detailing curriculum and course content related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) throughout Texas public institutions.” The lawmakers could have pointed out that the law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus (SB 17) specifically protected classroom teaching. However, in the eyes of the Senate Interim Subcommittee lawmakers, reports about course content were judged to evidence unseemly disrespect for their work: “Though this does not explicitly violate the letter of the law, it contradicts its spirit and does not reflect the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” (p. 33).

SB 37 was therefore crafted in 2025 to compel a new “spirit” of compliance in Texas Higher Education. The spirit of the ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion mandated by SB 17 was not being fully assimilated throughout Texas college classrooms. Faculty council meetings like the ones that happened in June 2020 or Valentine’s Day 2022 would not happen again if trustees, appointed by the governor, could be empowered to more closely supervise the selection of presidents, provosts, and deans; if, in turn, presidents could be empowered to appoint a significant share of faculty council members along with all three of their presiding officers; and if, finally, presidents and provosts would be given sole authority to remove faculty council members from their seats.

SB 37 ensures that a spirit of uncontradicted compliance shall emanate from the high source of the Texas Governor’s office down through faculty councils and into the entire curriculum of Texas higher education, fully satisfying what the Senate Subcommittee Interim Triumverate characterized as “the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” alike.

*****

Two years after the George Floyd moment, and eight months after the Texas Governor signed the ban against “critical race theory” in public schools, the Valentine’s Day resolution of 2022 was a conscious attempt to rescue civil rights and academic freedom from the disaster that threatens them today. The resolution was debated in an open meeting, where dissent was duly reported in the minutes.

An associate professor of Finance accused the council of requiring “adherence to critical race theory….  and now you are complaining about this hypothetical threat that there might be a ban.” He complained that the council resolution did not make mention of the Chicago Statement or the Kelven Report which encouraged institutions to remain neutral and abstain from “declaring a collective opinion on political and social issues” (goacta.org). Minutes report that his dissent concluded with the declaration that the legislature “did not give you autonomy so you could turn our school into a social justice indoctrination camp. They absolutely should be monitoring this.” Two responses are recorded in the minutes.

A professor of Human Development and Family Science argued that the council resolution did not compel faculty to take any particular positions regarding race or gender theory, but “those people who do research on these areas, historians who have been studying the historical impacts of racism, they have the expertise … and they should have the right to be able to speak about it.”

And a professor who served on the drafting committee argued that the resolution received unanimous support from the committee “after considerable work and thought and interaction with people of other universities.” Citing the great American rule of resistance, that “we have all got to hang together or we will all hang separately,” the professor of Integrative Biology warned that: “It is critical race theory today. It is going to be … climate change or evolution tomorrow, so it affects all of us.” Minutes reflect that the resolution passed “by majority vote: forty-three in favor, five against, and three abstaining” (doc. 19152).

*****

A moral cyclone of backlash is howling to punish Texas faculty for their so-called “wokeness.” When the House Higher Education Committee heard testimony regarding the anti-tenure bill (SB 18) in 2023, long hours produced not a single witness in its favor. Not one. Yet the committee approved the bill that the Lt. Governor now brags about passing because it significantly weakens tenure.

Similarly, this year, the Texas AAUP counts about three witnesses speaking for SB 37, but 300 witnesses against, a ratio of 100-to-one “Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” pleading with Texas politicians that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” in Texas. But once again, the fix was in, the railroad operation blared full steam ahead, and the bill was adopted by the committee along party lines, with Republicans in control.

Finally, under the afternoon light of a simmering Texas sun, on May 24, 2025, when SB 37 was being debated in the Texas House of Representatives, Republicans made it a point to drown out the debate under a crescendo of bar car chatter. The chair of the House tried to gavel them to order. The Democrat who held the floor yelled “shut up!” But the House Republicans, who are on record for mandating orderly classrooms in public schools, could not be bothered to stop talking over the debate.

Voices of faculty and their friends in Texas have been scattered against shrill winds of power. Barring a miracle of conscience, the Lt. Governor’s kneecap campaign will be soon visiting a Texas campus near you. Don’t get caught out supporting civil rights, academic freedom, or social justice. And be sure to get your faculty council opinions realigned with the ruling party in Texas, or there will be hell to pay.

BTW: When I think of Feb. 14 I think of the birthday of Frederick Douglass, author of the term “moral cyclone” who was born into bondage as the property of his father. The term “moral cyclone” is an unexaggerated metaphor for the way Texas faculty will soon be reborn as an intellectual labor force in service to Texas politicians who are eager to crack their power whips against any professor “foolish” enough to “stand firm” against the brazen dictates of a newly revised Texas Education Code. Altogether, Feb. 14th has become a mixed-up metaphor for the passion that joins the love of wisdom to the struggle for a democratic outcome, and only by the grace of God will it turn out differently this year than it did for Socrates back when.

*****

NOTE: SB 37 provisions described above reflect the latest updates reported in the House Higher Education Committee Substitute as of press time.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Moses.

When you think of Feb. 14 do you think of Valentine’s Day? On Feb. 14, 2022, the University of Texas at Austin Faculty Council adopted a fateful resolution affirming that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” (doc. 19141). Little did they realize that their forthright declaration of a principle old as Plato would be waved around like a bloody shirt. Republican politicians went hunting for Socrates.

Three years later, on Apr. 15, 2025, the Lt. Governor of Texas was still denouncing the “rogue faculty senate at the University of Texas” because it had “foolishly questioned the Texas Legislature’s authority over higher education” (ltgov.texas.gov).

But before we get into the story of the Valentine’s Day resolution or how it is being torched by Republican politicians, it is important to note that the Lt. Governor’s 2025 attack on the 2022 resolution commits the ethical fallacy of mistaking ought for is, right for might.

The Valentine’s Day resolution was an argument about what should be done: politicians should not assert authority over teaching, and faculty should be expected to “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” The Lt. Governor, on the other hand, rebuked the faculty council for questioning a fact that they did not question: “the Texas legislature’s authority over higher education.”

Why would the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopt a long argument that politicians should not interfere in college teaching if the council was assuming that politicians did not have the power to interfere? In fact, as we will see, the UT-Austin Faculty Council had very good reasons to believe that the legislature was going to try to interfere with faculty scholarship and teaching, as happened soon enough.

Mature wisdom lies on the side of the faculty in this preview debate. It makes little sense to argue that politicians should tell college faculty what to teach or how to teach it. The UT-Austin faculty were right to declare that they would “stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority.” Little did they know that their Valentine’s Day resolution would serve as a pretext to firehose faculty and douse the flames of civil rights progress, not only at their campus, but all across their great state.

*****

With about one week left to go before the end of the 2025 regular session, the Texas Legislature is preparing to join the Lt. Governor’s call to continue punishing faculty and their councils (also known as senates). Determined to drill Texas faculty in lessons they will not be able to “stand firm against,” the Lt. Governor in his capacity as president of the Texas Senate, is urging passage of Senate Bill 37, a law that would abolish faculty councils as we know them by Sept. 1.

The Lt. Governor is already boasting credit for “significantly weakened tenure” in Texas, following the passage of SB 18 in 2023. He counts the attack on tenure as part of “the largest pushback against wokeness in higher education in U.S. history,” an offensive that also included the passage of SB 17 in 2023 that relentlessly banned diversity, equity, and inclusion activities on campus.

Now he wants to crush faculty governance, too. In place of existing councils elected by faculty, SB 37 would require college presidents to appoint at least one member to the council from each college or school and then name the primary officers of the council (“a presiding officer, associate presiding officer, and secretary from the members.”)

Furthermore, among more than 20 pages of provisions in SB 37, college trustees will newly be required to “approve or deny the hiring of” deans or chief academic officers (commonly known as provosts). Collegial norms of shared governance usually treat the position of dean or provost as a matter for college presidents to decide “with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty” (AAUP Redbook 11^th 119).

Under SB 37’s takeover of faculty councils, the provost, in turn, would be charged with identifying council members who are guilty of “misconduct,” and if the president agrees with the provost, a faculty council member shall be summarily removed from the council.

The general effect of SB 37 is to increase the authority of politically appointed trustees into spheres of academic operations so that influence flows more smoothly from the governor’s desk. Recent revisions to the bill would even require at least two trustees to serve on presidential search committees. Furthermore, the governor would appoint a statewide higher ed ombudsman who will take complaints, conduct investigations, and refer cases to the state auditor or legislature, including recommendations to withhold funding.

Among the many professional indignities that SB 37 will inflict upon faculty across Texas is the provision that strikes their right to serve on faculty grievance reviews. The president and provost will then have sole authority over faculty grievances. Prohibiting faculty representation during grievance reviews contradicts professional standards of the American Association of University Professors, which assumes the existence of faculty grievance committees, and which states that “In collegial work environments, due process includes an opportunity for peer participation in the review process” (AAUP Redbook 11th 215).

According to the Lt. Governor, the extreme undoing of faculty shared governance in Texas is necessary because “senates must have a clearly defined role at our universities.” What role is that? According to the Lt. Governor, “faculty senates generally serve a purpose and help Boards of Regents make critical decisions impacting university students in Texas.” But apparently, this role does not include issuing Valentine’s Day resolutions which assert faculty responsibility for teaching or that declare faculty resistance against external pressure in the classroom.

Once again, mature wisdom would counsel the Lt. Governor that he is correct to say that “senates must have a clearly defined role.” However, there is a critical flaw in his selection of the Senate that is out of bounds. And he still has time in the coming week to reign in the senate that is running amok.

*****

Historical tragedies like SB 37 have backstories. In his Apology, Socrates explained to the jury how the accusations against him resulted from long simmering attitudes about his vocation and political choices. Likewise, behind the world-historical clampdown now being imposed on Texas college campuses, we find grudges against civil rights and academic freedom that have been ripening for years.

When the Valentine’s Day resolution of the UT-Austin Faculty Council publicly affirmed “the rights and academic freedom of faculty to design courses, curriculum, and pedagogy, and to conduct related scholarly research,” they were hoping to immunize their community against political attacks. “More specifically,” the 2022 resolution warned that “state legislative proposals seeking to limit teaching and discussions of racism and related issues have been proposed and enacted in several states, including Texas.” Mindful of attacks already underway, the resolution affirmed “the fundamental rights of faculty to academic freedom in its broadest sense, inclusive of research and teaching of race and gender theory” (doc. 19141).

The Valentine’s Day resolution was presented to the council by the Pharmacy professor who chaired the faculty Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that drafted the resolution. Minutes of the meeting report that the resolution was “co-sponsored and endorsed by the University Faculty Gender Equity Council (UFGEC), the Council for LGBTQ+ Access, Equity, and Inclusion (Q+AEI), the Council for Racial and Ethnic Equity and Diversity, and the Faculty Council Executive Committee” (doc. 19152).

Broad outlines of the UT faculty resolution followed a “Template for Academic Freedom” that was published in 2021 by the American Association of University Professors, PEN, the American Historical Association, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and then endorsed and adopted by numerous reputable groups and faculty senates, all of whom were concerned about growing right-wing attacks on academic freedom.

The “Template Academic Senate Resolution,” finalized on Sept. 21, 2021, and posted to Google Docs, made an attempt to stand fast against the swift backlash that was sweeping the nation following the global protests against the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. The Texas legislature led the backlash to closely monitor what could or could not be taught about racism in America. When the Texas Governor signed HB 3979 on June 15, 2021, he issued a terse signing statement that called the bill “a strong move to abolish critical race theory in Texas.” He vowed that “more must be done,” and he promised to add the issue to the summer’s special session agenda (gov.texas.gov).

*****

One year to the day before the Texas Governor signed the bill banning what he called “critical race theory” in public schools, and two years before the Valentine’s Day resolution, the UT-Austin Faculty Council adopted an updated statement on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” Passed unanimously by the 55 voting members present, the refreshed statement pledged “to provide equitable access and inclusion in all our activities” (doc. 18263). Although the language had been approved by the council’s executive committee on May 15, 2020, ten days before the murder of Houston Native Son George Floyd, the widescale protests of June 2020 made the timing seem momentous.

Minutes of the June 15, 2020, faculty council meeting are worth quoting at length, because, as the book of Proverbs advises, “let the wise listen and add to their learning” (Prov. 1:5). The council minutes presented below have been edited to remove personal names, just as we have done with the Governor and Lt. Governor above:

The University President discussed racial equity, diversity, and inclusion in the wake of the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many other Black people. Central leadership has put out a statement and are meeting with the various groups that have made requests for action, including student athletes, other student groups, the Precursors, and other alumni groups. The President said, “I want to listen to them and hear what they’re feeling, what they’re seeing, what their priorities are, and work together…on our set of actions.” He has been working with the Vice President for Diversity and Community Engagement and the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement (DDCE) to reconsider the University’s Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan. Additionally, they have been working with the Vice Provost for Diversity and the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost on faculty diversity, and the President and Provost are “nearing adoption of the plan that was brought forward.” Recent reports from the Campus Contextualization Committee will inform how they think about physical aspects of the campus. The President shared a conversation he had with a Black student leader who described “all the little ways that it was difficult to feel like she fully belonged.” A minority student taking a campus tour pulled her aside to ask, “What’s it really like here at UT?” Her response: “It’s really hard, but it’s worth it.” The President said his exchange with that Black student leader “hit me,” and he thought “we can do better” by recruiting diverse talent, making sure they enjoy their UT Austin experience, and ensuring they feel empowered to contribute.

The Faculty Council Chair Elect thanked the many participants involved in revising the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement, which was then presented by a Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies. The Professor said that, in 2018, UT Austin adopted a diversity statement for the first time, but a number of constituencies on campus felt the statement was “not particularly inclusive.” The new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement addresses the issue of inclusivity in the second paragraph: “The University is dedicated to attracting highly qualified students, faculty, and staff of all races, ethnicities, peoples, nationalities, religious backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, socioeconomic statuses, disabilities and health histories regardless of their marital, parental, age, veteran, or citizenship status.” A Professor of English proposed an amendment to change “provide” to “providing” in the first sentence, which the FCEC accepted.

A Professor of Classics shared the story of James Reeb, a Protestant minister killed in Selma, who “believed that it was impossible for White people who were in comfortable living situations to do anything for the Black minorities while still living where they were living.” He related this insight to “what we’re doing here with this diversity statement,” adding that the statement “will only have meaning if the resources and the commitment are there to really do something.” He added that the percentage of Black students at UT Austin “never varies from somewhere around 4 percent in a state where there are 13 percent African Americans.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies remarked that “only about 42 percent of the student population is White,” but agreed that Professor of Classic’s “basic observation is absolutely correct.” He asked, “Why hasn’t the White majority [at UT Austin] changed things so that…we don’t have the problems that we have? I think it’s a challenge for all of us.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies agreed that more action is necessary, but reasoned that the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement would set goals, aspirations, and principles to which UT Austin could be held. A Senior Lecturer in Management seconded the Professor of Classic’s concern that a new diversity statement on its own would not solve the problem. He said, “If we’re going to do something, we have to make a commitment to being able to recruit in the marketplace, and the marketplace is more competitive than we’ve ever seen.”

A Clinical Professor from the School of Law suggested that the word “opportunities,” be switched to “access” since the phrase “equal opportunities” in terms of education has come to stand for the narrow hypothesis that students can simply be given a “level starting place” and then “the rest is just…so-called meritocracy.” The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies said he would be in favor of changing the wording. Chair of Staff Council and Executive Assistant for the McDonald Observatory said calling UT Austin a “campus” in the last sentence risks overlooking colleagues who work in physical areas other than the 40 Acres. The Faculty Council Chair responded that, from one perspective, “campus is everything.”

An Associate Professor from the School of Design and Creative Technologies suggested changing “on a diverse campus” to “at a diverse University” to address the concern about excluding parts of UT Austin not within the 40 Acres. She also proposed that the last sentence read “learning and working on a diverse campus” instead of “learning on a diverse campus” to emphasize the important role played by staff. The Faculty Council Chair said the 2018 diversity statement focused on students, but the new statement has been expanded to explicitly include staff and facility. The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies supported changing the wording. The Faculty Council Chair noted that “this is not the final version”; it will be forwarded to “many, many other groups and administration offices” after being voted on by Faculty Council.

The Professor of African and African Diaspora Studies closed by saying, “coming together as a University community around these kinds of commitments and statements is particularly important at this time.”

The Faculty Council unanimously approved the proposed new UT Austin Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement. (Doc. 18300)

The wide representation of faculty, staff, and administration voices resonated with a national awakening that was rolling across the world in June of 2020. Language of the resolution stipulated that “Final approval resides with the President” (doc. 18263). Momentum of the 2020 faculty council meeting is worth remembering, the way we cherish the last few seconds of life and love before the family van gets smashed by a rogue truck.

*****

A Jan. 2025 interim report by the Texas Senate Higher Education Subcommittee alleged that: “Following the political unrest in the summer of 2020, a small group of extremists sought to seize the opportunity to transform public institutions – with the goal of reshaping Texas universities into institutions focused on social justice and equality of outcome” (p. 9). And this is the dark alchemy of how one Texas Senate interim report, signed by three members of a five member subcommittee, came to rebrand June 2020 as a time of “political unrest” and to infer that a gathering at that time of faculty, staff, vice presidents, and the president of UT Austin was but “a small group of extremists.”

The Texas Senate subcommittee interim report of 2025 went on to stipulate that “several legislators received reports from constituents and stakeholders across the state detailing curriculum and course content related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) throughout Texas public institutions.” The lawmakers could have pointed out that the law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus (SB 17) specifically protected classroom teaching. However, in the eyes of the Senate Interim Subcommittee lawmakers, reports about course content were judged to evidence unseemly disrespect for their work: “Though this does not explicitly violate the letter of the law, it contradicts its spirit and does not reflect the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” (p. 33).

SB 37 was therefore crafted in 2025 to compel a new “spirit” of compliance in Texas Higher Education. The spirit of the ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion mandated by SB 17 was not being fully assimilated throughout Texas college classrooms. Faculty council meetings like the ones that happened in June 2020 or Valentine’s Day 2022 would not happen again if trustees, appointed by the governor, could be empowered to more closely supervise the selection of presidents, provosts, and deans; if, in turn, presidents could be empowered to appoint a significant share of faculty council members along with all three of their presiding officers; and if, finally, presidents and provosts would be given sole authority to remove faculty council members from their seats.

SB 37 ensures that a spirit of uncontradicted compliance shall emanate from the high source of the Texas Governor’s office down through faculty councils and into the entire curriculum of Texas higher education, fully satisfying what the Senate Subcommittee Interim Triumverate characterized as “the expectations of Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” alike.

*****

Two years after the George Floyd moment, and eight months after the Texas Governor signed the ban against “critical race theory” in public schools, the Valentine’s Day resolution of 2022 was a conscious attempt to rescue civil rights and academic freedom from the disaster that threatens them today. The resolution was debated in an open meeting, where dissent was duly reported in the minutes.

An associate professor of Finance accused the council of requiring “adherence to critical race theory….  and now you are complaining about this hypothetical threat that there might be a ban.” He complained that the council resolution did not make mention of the Chicago Statement or the Kelven Report which encouraged institutions to remain neutral and abstain from “declaring a collective opinion on political and social issues” (goacta.org). Minutes report that his dissent concluded with the declaration that the legislature “did not give you autonomy so you could turn our school into a social justice indoctrination camp. They absolutely should be monitoring this.” Two responses are recorded in the minutes.

A professor of Human Development and Family Science argued that the council resolution did not compel faculty to take any particular positions regarding race or gender theory, but “those people who do research on these areas, historians who have been studying the historical impacts of racism, they have the expertise … and they should have the right to be able to speak about it.”

And a professor who served on the drafting committee argued that the resolution received unanimous support from the committee “after considerable work and thought and interaction with people of other universities.” Citing the great American rule of resistance, that “we have all got to hang together or we will all hang separately,” the professor of Integrative Biology warned that: “It is critical race theory today. It is going to be … climate change or evolution tomorrow, so it affects all of us.” Minutes reflect that the resolution passed “by majority vote: forty-three in favor, five against, and three abstaining” (doc. 19152).

*****

A moral cyclone of backlash is howling to punish Texas faculty for their so-called “wokeness.” When the House Higher Education Committee heard testimony regarding the anti-tenure bill (SB 18) in 2023, long hours produced not a single witness in its favor. Not one. Yet the committee approved the bill that the Lt. Governor now brags about passing because it significantly weakens tenure.

Similarly, this year, the Texas AAUP counts about three witnesses speaking for SB 37, but 300 witnesses against, a ratio of 100-to-one “Texas tuition-payers and taxpayers” pleading with Texas politicians that “educators, not politicians, should make decisions about teaching and learning” in Texas. But once again, the fix was in, the railroad operation blared full steam ahead, and the bill was adopted by the committee along party lines, with Republicans in control.

Finally, under the afternoon light of a simmering Texas sun, on May 24, 2025, when SB 37 was being debated in the Texas House of Representatives, Republicans made it a point to drown out the debate under a crescendo of bar car chatter. The chair of the House tried to gavel them to order. The Democrat who held the floor yelled “shut up!” But the House Republicans, who are on record for mandating orderly classrooms in public schools, could not be bothered to stop talking over the debate.

Voices of faculty and their friends in Texas have been scattered against shrill winds of power. Barring a miracle of conscience, the Lt. Governor’s kneecap campaign will be soon visiting a Texas campus near you. Don’t get caught out supporting civil rights, academic freedom, or social justice. And be sure to get your faculty council opinions realigned with the ruling party in Texas, or there will be hell to pay.

BTW: When I think of Feb. 14 I think of the birthday of Frederick Douglass, author of the term “moral cyclone” who was born into bondage as the property of his father. The term “moral cyclone” is an unexaggerated metaphor for the way Texas faculty will soon be reborn as an intellectual labor force in service to Texas politicians who are eager to crack their power whips against any professor “foolish” enough to “stand firm” against the brazen dictates of a newly revised Texas Education Code. Altogether, Feb. 14th has become a mixed-up metaphor for the passion that joins the love of wisdom to the struggle for a democratic outcome, and only by the grace of God will it turn out differently this year than it did for Socrates back when.

*****

NOTE: SB 37 provisions described above reflect the latest updates reported in the House Higher Education Committee Substitute as of press time.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Moses.

Trump’s sweeping budget legislation has been described as the biggest Medicaid cut in U.S. history. House Republicans passed the bill early Thursday morning in a 215-214 vote. The legislation would trigger massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years, denying coverage to an estimated 7.6 million Americans, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Food assistance under the federal SNAP program would also see $300 billion in cuts, while adding billions in funding for Trump’s mass deportation agenda and giving the wealthiest Americans a tax break.

“The legislation is basically a mugging conducted by the 1% against the rest of us. It represents the single largest upward redistribution of wealth effectuated by any piece of legislation in our history,” says Chris Lehmann, D.C. bureau chief for The Nation.

Senate Republicans, who have voiced some concerns over the bill, will now have to pass their own version of the budget. With all Democratic senators opposed to the package, Republicans are working to use the reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

• House passes Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” of tax breaks for wealthy, cuts to safety-net programs
• Trump holds dinner for top “$TRUMP” meme-coin customers, Dems call it “orgy of corruption” and national security threat
• CA planning lawsuit over Senate vote to repeal California’s vehicle pollution waivers
• UN says 9,000 children treated for malnutrition this year in Gaza
• Governor Newsom proclaims “Harvey Milk Day”

The post House passes Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” of tax breaks, program cuts; CA plans lawsuit over Senate vote repealing CA pollution waivers – May 22, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

• House passes Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” of tax breaks for wealthy, cuts to safety-net programs
• Trump holds dinner for top “$TRUMP” meme-coin customers, Dems call it “orgy of corruption” and national security threat
• CA planning lawsuit over Senate vote to repeal California’s vehicle pollution waivers
• UN says 9,000 children treated for malnutrition this year in Gaza
• Governor Newsom proclaims “Harvey Milk Day”

The post House passes Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” of tax breaks, program cuts; CA plans lawsuit over Senate vote repealing CA pollution waivers – May 22, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

• Dems blast Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” provisions on Medicaid and environment
• GOP budget bill would bar states from regulating Artificial Intelligence
• Displaced Gazans sleep in streets as Israel escalates offensive campaign
• Big City Mayors urge state lawmakers to support state’s Homeless, Housing Assistance, and Prevention program
• Bay democrats, environmentalists slam Newsom plan to fast-track Delta tunnel
• Judge dismisses charges against Newark NJ mayor arrested during congressional visit to ICE detention center

The post Dems blast Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” cuts to Medicaid and environment; Displaced Gazans sleep in streets as Israel escalates offensive campaign – May 21, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Over two dozen disability rights activists were arrested on Capitol Hill last week when they protested the Trump-backed Republican budget bill and its cuts to Medicaid, affordable housing and more. “We’re putting our bodies on the line [because] our bodies are on the line,” says Julie Farrar, an activist with ADAPT, which organized the protest. “It is blood on the hands of the GOP and the president and the administration, that they want this big, beautiful bill for billionaires that will kill poor people [and] disabled people.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

As a Republican-sponsored budget bill advances through Congress, we hear from Bishop William Barber about how the bill hurts low-income people. “It is about death-dealing and destruction to the poor and the elderly and the youth of our country,” says Barber, citing the bill’s cuts to essential social services like Medicaid and paralleling those cuts to the government’s funding of defense and deportation initiatives. “We have to start talking about this budget as a form of social and political murder.” Barber has been arrested with other faith leaders twice in the past month while protesting cuts, including in the Capitol Rotunda.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t education reform. It’s economic sabotage by design, not accident, as evidenced by the billion-dollar diversion from the public to the private sector with no public oversight. It’s a calculated attempt to shrink public institutions and turn education into a product, reserved for those who can already afford access. Despite the confetti statements from the Governor’s office, no, this is not a win for “parent choice.” It’s a win for privatization, and Texans—especially those in rural, immigrant, and working-class communities—will be paying the price.

Vouchers Passed, but Who’s Buying?

SB2 establishes a $1 billion Education Savings Account (ESA) program, giving qualifying families about $10,000 yearly to cover private school tuition, homeschool costs, transportation, textbooks, and therapy. On paper, it’s being sold as a lifeline for underserved students, but let’s not get distracted by the branding.

That $10,000 doesn’t come close to covering the actual cost of elite private schools in Texas, which average more than $11,000 annually and climb much higher in urban centers. More importantly, private schools participating in the ESA program aren’t required to accept anyone. They can—and will—cherry-pick their enrollees. That means students with disabilities, discipline histories, or families who can’t foot the rest of the bill will be left behind. Unlike public schools, these private institutions don’t have to abide by federal protections like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

To top it off, SB2 bars undocumented students from participating altogether. That’s right—while public schools remain constitutionally obligated to educate all students, the state is now writing checks that explicitly exclude immigrant families. So much for “choice.”

Rural Reality Check 

Take it from Hazel, a Students Organized for a Real Shot (SORS) organizer and student in rural North Texas: “There’s no ‘choice’ where I live. My public school is the only school. And now they want to take money from it?”

That’s the reality for thousands of families across Texas. Public schools in small towns aren’t just classrooms—they’re lifelines. They’re often the largest employers, food hubs, and mental health support systems in the entire community. Gutting them doesn’t create opportunity. It hollows out the very infrastructure that keeps these places alive.

Some conservatives have recognized this contradiction. Though when it came time to vote, only two Republicans, former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Rep. Gary VanDeaver, dared to oppose SB2. The rest folded under pressure from Governor Abbott and the powerful voucher machine which includes groups like the American Federation for Children and Texas-based mega-donors (like Dick Uihlein and Jeff Yass) who’ve spent millions reshaping the Legislature through targeted primary campaigns. Make no mistake: This wasn’t just a policy fight. It was a hostile takeover.

What About Public Schools?

While many lawmakers were busy high-fiving over vouchers, public schools continued to drown under outdated funding formulas and chronic disinvestment. Texas still ranks in the bottom third of states for per-pupil spending, and even after the Legislature approved a $7.7 billion education package through House Bill 2, many districts are still facing budget shortfalls and teacher shortages.

Sure, HB2 raises the basic allotment from $6,160 to $6,555, and ties future increases to property value growth. But educators on the ground know it’s not enough. The funding doesn’t account for years of inflation or meet the rising costs of special education, staffing, and school maintenance. It’s a start, but it’s far from transformative, and lawmakers knew that when they passed it.

Meanwhile, teachers continue to leave the profession in staggering numbers. According to the Texas American Federation of Teachers, more than 66 percent considered quitting in 2022. Instead of offering competitive salaries or mental health support, this Legislature gave them censorship bills like Senate Bill 13, which would authorize politically-appointed parents to make sweeping decisionsabout what books students will be able to find in their school libraries, coupled with gestapo-like legal action against teachers deemed to have violated Texas state law by “teaching woke critical race theory.” Because nothing says “thank you for your service” quite like criminalizing your curriculum.

Manufactured Crisis, Manufactured Choice

First, they failed to fund us. Then, they blamed us for failing.

That’s the playbook. The state basic allotment per pupil hasn’t budged since 2019, starving school districts of resources. Yet when STAAR test scores dip, schools are cast as the problem, and the Texas Education Agency swoops in with state-mandated takeovers. That’s the manufactured crisis. Lawmakers are selling “choice” as the solution, but it’s a trapdoor, not a lifeline.

Jakiyla, a Students Organized for a Real Shot (SORS) Dallas-Fort Worth area organizer, noted, “After COVID, our schools were already struggling. And now with this voucher bill, we’re being told we don’t even deserve recovery. We’re just collateral damage in someone else’s agenda.” Jakiyla’s words speak to what countless students across Texas are feeling. Let’s not pretend vouchers are happening in a vacuum. They’re part of a broader campaign to destabilize and delegitimize public education.

Since 2021, Texas has passed multiple laws banning so-called “divisive topics,” cracked down on libraries, and launched attacks on curriculum deemed too inclusive. The state even flirted with legislation this session that would allow politicians to micromanage schoolbook collections—because apparently, To Kill a Mockingbird is a bigger threat than poverty or crumbling campuses.

This isn’t about helping kids. It’s about consolidating power and controlling what students learn and how they learn it. It’s about shifting accountability away from the public and into the hands of private actors with no obligation to serve all students, uphold civil rights, or even report outcomes.

What Happens After Sine Die?

As we approach June 2, the focus will shift to the implementation of these programs, legal challenges to SB2’s more extreme provisions (like its citizenship clause), and the behind-closed-doors conference committee process to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill. Expect behind-closed-door negotiations over who gets priority for vouchers, what oversight looks like, and how funding rules may shift over time. Generally, expect more spin, but the facts don’t lie. Texas educates more than 5.4 million public school students, and each one deserves a fully funded, fully staffed, censorship-free education. That’s not some radical demand —it’s a moral and constitutional imperative.

Yet, with the passage of SB2, the Legislature made a choice to invest in exclusion instead of equity and privatization instead of the public good.

This Is How We Fight Back

This legislative session was billed as a turning point—a chance to “reinvest in Texas kids.” Instead, lawmakers handed our future over to lobbyists and political donors, making it clear that public schools are not their priority. Unless we organize, speak out, and hold them accountable, this billion-dollar heist will be just the beginning.

Charter expansions are next. Teacher “accountability” bills are on the horizon. More manufactured outrage over library and classroom content is guaranteed. The goal isn’t excellence—it’s control.

But here’s what they don’t expect: resistance. From rural towns to big cities, from high schoolers to retired educators, Texans are waking up. We know what’s being taken from us. And we’re not going quiet.

If Texas has taught us anything, it’s that underdogs don’t stay quiet—and when we rise, we raise hell, and we’re just getting started.

This article originally appeared on https://www.projectcensored.org/texas-billion-heist-public-education/

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Da’Taeveyon Daniels.

“This bill will raise costs for consumers and folks in need, while destroying American innovation and lowering taxes for the already super rich,” said David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS. “Not only is this bill shockingly cruel in the depth of cuts it would impose, it shows the majority and president are totally cut off from reality. In their fantasy world, people deserve to fall through the massive holes cut in the U.S. social safety net, consumers should pay more for energy and transportation to support the oil and gas industries, and billionaires deserve lower taxes. In addition, Congress went out of its way to create a loophole by which the administration can target nonprofits the president doesn't like without due process—stunning and shameful.”

Below is information about the sections of the bill UCS analysts are following.

Energy sections of the bill, including those that would:

o Undermining the clean electricity tax credits threatens to send electricity prices soaring, severely slowing the deployment of the lowest-cost sources of electricity generation right as demand is expected to surge.

o Shifting eligibility to “placed in service” would further accelerate the credit phaseout and threaten to fully derail future projects.

Clean transportation sections of the bill, including those that would:

o While drivers can save hundreds of dollars a year in reduced fuel and maintenance costs by switching to electric, the upfront cost of electric cars and trucks can be a hurdle, which is why the tax credits were targeted to increase everyone’s accessibility to EVs.

o Lack of access to charging stations is cited as one of the most common barriers for drivers interested in switching to electric. Repealing this credit would only benefits the oil industry, at the expense of suppliers manufacturing the charging infrastructure, union workers installing and maintaining the chargers, and drivers and fleet operators looking to save money and clean the air by switching to electric.

o Eliminating the global warming pollution rules would increase fuel and maintenance costs for new vehicles by $6,000 over the life of the vehicles; rolling back the commonsense CAFE standards would increase fuel costs by $23 billion through 2050.

o The vehicles, vessels, and equipment that move freight create hot spots of some of the worst air quality in the country and contribute significantly to climate change. There is no safe level of soot to breathe, and despite making up a small fraction of vehicles on the road, heavy duty vehicles are disproportionately responsible for global warming emissions, soot and smog-forming pollution.

SNAP and ag sections of the bill, including the plan to:

Defense sections of the bill that would:

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party introduced the bill on Tuesday in Parliament on the heels of Orbán’s pledge to crack down on a “shadow army” of critical voices, including journalists and activists, in a “spring cleaning.”

“The introduction of this Russian-style ‘foreign agent’ bill is a chilling signal that Orbán’s government is prepared to eliminate the last remnants of Hungary’s independent media in its pursuit of unchecked power ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections,” said Tom Gibson, CPJ’s deputy advocacy director, EU. “This measure amounts to Hungary’s complete abandonment of its responsibilities as a member of the European Union and would fundamentally undermine democracy. European leaders must act swiftly.”

The bill would grant Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Office more power to establish “a register of organizations that threaten Hungary’s sovereignty with foreign aid,” according to an analysis by Médiafórum, the Association of Independent Media Outlets. 

Listed organizations would face severe restrictions, including: mandatory public asset declarations from senior officers, founders, and oversight committee members; a requirement to obtain anti-money laundering approval for foreign funding; loss of eligibility for 1% tax donations from citizens; classification of leaders as “politically exposed persons”; and a mandate to secure proof from all donors that funds did not originate abroad. 

The bill classifies any funding from outside Hungary as a potential sovereignty threat, including EU grants or donations as low as €5.

A joint statement signed by Hungarian NGOs and independent media outlets called the bill “an unprecedented attack on the country’s still-independent institutions” and “an authoritarian attempt to maintain power” that aims to “silence all critical voices and dismantle the remaining traces of Hungarian democracy.”

CPJ’s email to the office of Zoltán Kovács, the Hungarian government’s international spokesperson, did not receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

All of these giveaways to the ultra-wealthy would be funded by deep cuts to Medicaid, nutrition programs that support children and veterans, and other essential services. The small portions of the bill that may benefit low- and middle-income families are set to expire in 3-4 years, while wealthy individuals will benefit from permanent tax breaks. The bill would give $55,000 a year to households with a million dollars of income and up, $800 million a year to the 400 richest Americans, and billions more to the biggest corporations in the world.

“Every Republican member on the House Ways and Means Committee voted to extend one of the largest tax giveaways to the rich ever recorded—and then made the tax breaks even bigger—all at the expense of workers and families,” said David Kass, ATF Executive Director. “The billionaire-backed GOP majority can’t hide the truth from their constituents. Millions of Americans will lose life-saving Medicaid coverage and nutritional services while saddling the nation’s future with trillions in debt, all so their billionaire backers can avoid paying anything close to their fair share in taxes. This fight is not over by any means. We call on all Americans to reach out to their representatives and urge them to vote down this disastrous bill, and use every tool at their disposal to stop it.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Indeed, President Trump has become a walking civics lesson.

Consider some of the constitutional principles that Trump can be credited with bringing into the spotlight unintentionally during his time in office.

First Amendment (free speech, press, religion, protest, and assembly): Trump’s repeated confrontations with the First Amendment have transformed free expression into a battleground, making it impossible to ignore the protections it guarantees. From branding the press as “the enemy of the people” and threatening to revoke media licenses to blacklisting law firms, threatening universities with funding cuts for not complying with the government’s ideological agenda, and detaining foreign students for their political views, Trump has treated constitutional protections not as guarantees, but as obstacles.

Second Amendment (right to bear arms): Trump has shown an inconsistent and, at times, authoritarian approach to gun rights, summed up in his infamous 2018 statement: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” At the same time, Trump has encouraged the militarization of domestic police forces, blurring the line between civilian law enforcement and standing armies—a contradiction that cuts against the very spirit of the amendment, which was rooted in distrust of centralized power and standing militaries.

Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures): Trump’s expansion of no-knock raids, endorsement of sweeping surveillance tactics, sanctioning of police brutality and greater immunity for police misconduct, and the use of masked, plainclothes federal agents to seize demonstrators off the streets have revived conversations about privacy, unlawful searches, and the right to be secure in one’s person and property.

Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments (due process and equal protection): Perhaps nowhere has Trump’s disregard been more dangerous than in his approach to due process and equal protection under the law. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that neither citizens nor non-citizens can be deprived of liberty without fair procedures. Yet Trump’s Administration has repeatedly floated or enacted policies that sidestep due process, from the suggestion that he could suspend habeas corpus to the indefinite detention of individuals without trial, and openly questioned whether non-citizens deserve any constitutional protections at all.

Even the Sixth (right to a fair and speedy trial) and Eighth Amendments (protection against cruel and unusual punishment) have found new urgency: Trump has promoted indefinite pretrial detention for protesters and immigrants alike, while presiding over family separations, inhumane detention centers, and support for enhanced interrogation techniques. Trump has also doubled down on his administration’s commitment to carrying out more executions, including a push to impose the death penalty for crimes other than murder.

Tenth Amendment (states’ rights): The Tenth Amendment, which preserves state sovereignty against federal overreach, has been tested by Trump’s threats to defund sanctuary cities, override state public health measures, and interfere in local policing and elections. His efforts to federalize domestic law enforcement have exposed the limits of decentralized power in the face of executive ambition.

Fourteenth Amendment (birthright citizenship): No clause has been more aggressively misunderstood by Trump than the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. His push to strip citizenship from children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents (birthright citizenship) ignores over a century of legal precedent affirming that citizenship cannot be denied by executive whim.

Article I, Section 8 (commerce and tariffs): Trump’s use of tariff authority provides another example of executive power run amok. Although the Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs on allies and used them as political leverage. These actions not only undermine the constitutional balance between the branches but also weaponize trade policy for political ends.

Article I, Section 9 (Emoluments Clause): Trump’s disregard for the Emoluments Clause—a safeguard against presidential profiteering—brought this obscure constitutional provision back into the public eye. Between continuing to profit from his private businesses while in office and his reported willingness to accept extravagant gifts, including a $400 million luxury plane from the Qatari government, he has raised urgent ethical and legal concerns about self-dealing, corruption and backdoor arrangements by which foreign and domestic governments can funnel money into Trump’s personal coffers.

Article I, Section 9 (power of the purse): Trump has trampled on Congress’s exclusive power over federal spending, attempting to redirect funds by executive fiat rather than operating within Congress’s approved budgetary plan. He has also threatened to withhold federal aid from states, cities, and universities deemed insufficiently loyal.

Article II (executive powers): At the heart of Trump’s governance is a dangerous misreading of Article II, which vests executive power in the president, to justify executive overreach and the concept of an all-powerful unitary executive. He has repeatedly claimed “total authority” over state matters, wielded executive orders like royal decrees in order to bypass Congress, and sought to bend the Department of Justice to his personal and political will.

Historical Emergency Powers and Legal Precedents: Trump has also breathed new life into archaic emergency powers. He invoked the Alien Enemies Act to justify rounding up, detaining, and deporting undocumented immigrants without due process. He has also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops domestically in order to deal with civil unrest, raising the specter of martial law cloaked in patriotic language.

In routinely violating the Constitution and crossing legal lines that were once unthinkable, Trump is forcing Americans to confront what the Constitution truly protects, and what it doesn’t.

Still, what good is a knowledgeable citizenry if their elected officials are woefully ignorant about the Constitution or willfully disregard their sworn duty to uphold and protect it?

For starters, anyone taking public office, from the president on down, should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. And if they violate their contractual obligations to uphold and defend the Constitution, vote them out—throw them out—or impeach them.

“We the people” have power, but we must use it or lose it.

Trump may have contributed to this revival in constitutional awareness, but as we warn in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the challenge isn’t just knowing our rights—it’s defending them, before they’re gone for good.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

Indeed, President Trump has become a walking civics lesson.

Consider some of the constitutional principles that Trump can be credited with bringing into the spotlight unintentionally during his time in office.

First Amendment (free speech, press, religion, protest, and assembly): Trump’s repeated confrontations with the First Amendment have transformed free expression into a battleground, making it impossible to ignore the protections it guarantees. From branding the press as “the enemy of the people” and threatening to revoke media licenses to blacklisting law firms, threatening universities with funding cuts for not complying with the government’s ideological agenda, and detaining foreign students for their political views, Trump has treated constitutional protections not as guarantees, but as obstacles.

Second Amendment (right to bear arms): Trump has shown an inconsistent and, at times, authoritarian approach to gun rights, summed up in his infamous 2018 statement: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” At the same time, Trump has encouraged the militarization of domestic police forces, blurring the line between civilian law enforcement and standing armies—a contradiction that cuts against the very spirit of the amendment, which was rooted in distrust of centralized power and standing militaries.

Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures): Trump’s expansion of no-knock raids, endorsement of sweeping surveillance tactics, sanctioning of police brutality and greater immunity for police misconduct, and the use of masked, plainclothes federal agents to seize demonstrators off the streets have revived conversations about privacy, unlawful searches, and the right to be secure in one’s person and property.

Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments (due process and equal protection): Perhaps nowhere has Trump’s disregard been more dangerous than in his approach to due process and equal protection under the law. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that neither citizens nor non-citizens can be deprived of liberty without fair procedures. Yet Trump’s Administration has repeatedly floated or enacted policies that sidestep due process, from the suggestion that he could suspend habeas corpus to the indefinite detention of individuals without trial, and openly questioned whether non-citizens deserve any constitutional protections at all.

Even the Sixth (right to a fair and speedy trial) and Eighth Amendments (protection against cruel and unusual punishment) have found new urgency: Trump has promoted indefinite pretrial detention for protesters and immigrants alike, while presiding over family separations, inhumane detention centers, and support for enhanced interrogation techniques. Trump has also doubled down on his administration’s commitment to carrying out more executions, including a push to impose the death penalty for crimes other than murder.

Tenth Amendment (states’ rights): The Tenth Amendment, which preserves state sovereignty against federal overreach, has been tested by Trump’s threats to defund sanctuary cities, override state public health measures, and interfere in local policing and elections. His efforts to federalize domestic law enforcement have exposed the limits of decentralized power in the face of executive ambition.

Fourteenth Amendment (birthright citizenship): No clause has been more aggressively misunderstood by Trump than the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. His push to strip citizenship from children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents (birthright citizenship) ignores over a century of legal precedent affirming that citizenship cannot be denied by executive whim.

Article I, Section 8 (commerce and tariffs): Trump’s use of tariff authority provides another example of executive power run amok. Although the Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs on allies and used them as political leverage. These actions not only undermine the constitutional balance between the branches but also weaponize trade policy for political ends.

Article I, Section 9 (Emoluments Clause): Trump’s disregard for the Emoluments Clause—a safeguard against presidential profiteering—brought this obscure constitutional provision back into the public eye. Between continuing to profit from his private businesses while in office and his reported willingness to accept extravagant gifts, including a $400 million luxury plane from the Qatari government, he has raised urgent ethical and legal concerns about self-dealing, corruption and backdoor arrangements by which foreign and domestic governments can funnel money into Trump’s personal coffers.

Article I, Section 9 (power of the purse): Trump has trampled on Congress’s exclusive power over federal spending, attempting to redirect funds by executive fiat rather than operating within Congress’s approved budgetary plan. He has also threatened to withhold federal aid from states, cities, and universities deemed insufficiently loyal.

Article II (executive powers): At the heart of Trump’s governance is a dangerous misreading of Article II, which vests executive power in the president, to justify executive overreach and the concept of an all-powerful unitary executive. He has repeatedly claimed “total authority” over state matters, wielded executive orders like royal decrees in order to bypass Congress, and sought to bend the Department of Justice to his personal and political will.

Historical Emergency Powers and Legal Precedents: Trump has also breathed new life into archaic emergency powers. He invoked the Alien Enemies Act to justify rounding up, detaining, and deporting undocumented immigrants without due process. He has also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops domestically in order to deal with civil unrest, raising the specter of martial law cloaked in patriotic language.

In routinely violating the Constitution and crossing legal lines that were once unthinkable, Trump is forcing Americans to confront what the Constitution truly protects, and what it doesn’t.

Still, what good is a knowledgeable citizenry if their elected officials are woefully ignorant about the Constitution or willfully disregard their sworn duty to uphold and protect it?

For starters, anyone taking public office, from the president on down, should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. And if they violate their contractual obligations to uphold and defend the Constitution, vote them out—throw them out—or impeach them.

“We the people” have power, but we must use it or lose it.

Trump may have contributed to this revival in constitutional awareness, but as we warn in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the challenge isn’t just knowing our rights—it’s defending them, before they’re gone for good.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

Statement from Amy Hanauer, Executive Director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy:

“This bill gives enormous additional tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations, spikes the deficit, and strips health care from millions of Americans. Reckless tax cuts for the top and new corporate loopholes appear to be the big features of this bill, and they’re paid for by cutting our health care and making American communities more vulnerable to floods, fires, and storms. The revenue raisers – which don’t stop this from being extremely expensive – seem to be about picking winners and losers, rather than passing rational, consistent policies.”

Among the major changes:

• The 2017 changes to personal income tax rates and brackets would be made permanent. These rate and bracket changes would result in a tax cut for some people in all income groups, but nearly two-thirds of the benefits would go to the richest fifth of taxpayers, and more than a quarter would go to the richest 1 percent.
• The deduction for income individuals receive from “pass-through” businesses would be made permanent and increased from 20 to 23 percent. Proponents of this subsidy sometimes characterize it as a break for “small” businesses but most of the benefits go to the richest 1 percent.
• The exemption for the estate tax would increase to $15 million per spouse from $13.99 million per spouse and continue to increase with inflation. The reach of this tax is already at historic lows. In 2019, for example, only 8 of every 10,000 people who died left an estate large enough to trigger the tax.
• The Child Tax Credit (CTC) would temporarily increase to $2,500 per child from $2,000 per child for four years — an amount slightly below its inflation-adjusted value at the start of 2018 when the $2,000 credit first took effect. But millions of children whose parents earn too little to receive the full CTC would be denied this benefit. And 4.5 million U.S. citizen kids would lose access to the credit entirely under new restrictions requiring that all filing parents must have Social Security numbers.
• Corporate tax subsidies that supposedly encourage innovation and investment – tax breaks for research expensing, bonus depreciation, and bigger deductions for interest payments – would be reinstated for five years starting this year.
• The very generous version of a tax break for offshore profits (the GILTI deduction) would be made permanent, effectively taxing the foreign profits of American corporations half as much (at most) as their domestic profits are taxed. This is a tax break compared to the original 2017 tax law, which scheduled a less generous version of this provision to come into effect in 2026.
• An unprecedented dollar-for-dollar tax credit for people steering money into nonprofit groups that distribute private K-12 school vouchers would be created. In addition to the tax credit, contributors to these groups would also be able to reduce their taxes further by avoiding capital gains tax on contributions of appreciated stock, with the result being a profitable tax shelter overall. (The credit is a somewhat scaled back version of a bill that ITEP analyzed earlier this year.)
• The 2017 change to the standard deduction would be made permanent, and a temporary four-year boost would bump it up to $16,300 for individuals, $24,500 for taxpayers filing as head of household, and $32,600 for married couples.
• A new, temporary deduction of $4,000 would be provided to seniors for the next four years. The deduction would be available to both itemizers and standard deduction claimants and would phase out starting at incomes of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples. Taxpayers without Social Security numbers would be ineligible for the deduction.
• Certain earned income (tips and overtime) will be temporarily exempt from tax for four years, subject to limitations based on income. These provisions would amount to an unprincipled tax preference that favors people working in certain professions over all others.

To help pay for these tax cuts, the legislation proposes the following changes, among others:

• Personal and dependent exemptions, which had been temporarily suspended under the 2017 law, would be permanently repealed.
• The cap on deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) paid would be extended past its planned expiration at the end of this year, though the current $10,000 cap will be boosted to $30,000 for married filers and $15,000 for individuals. Those amounts would phase down to $10,000 and $5,000, respectively, for high-earning households. Some pass-through businesses would also be subject to the SALT cap, though C corporations will not.
• The Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for electric vehicles, residential energy-efficient upgrades, and other green energy technologies would be terminated at the end of 2025.
• New restrictions would be placed on health insurance premium tax credits, making it difficult for some families to afford health insurance.
• A tiered tax increase on colleges and universities would be put in place based on the size of their per-student endowment. The tax would amount to 1.4% of net investment income for institutions with per-student endowments of $500,000 per student and would top out at 21% for institutions with per-student endowments of $2 million or above.
• A tiered tax increase on private foundations’ net investment income would be put in place. The current rate of 1.39% would be increased for foundations with assets of at least $50 million. The top rate of 10% would apply to foundations with assets of $5 billion or more.
• A new 5% excise tax would be created on remittances sent to other countries by undocumented immigrants and others without Social Security numbers.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on May 13, 2025. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

House Republicans on Monday quietly revived a proposal that would grant the Trump administration broad authority to crush nonprofits it views as part of the political opposition, from environmental justice organizations to news outlets.

Fight for the Future and other advocacy groups called attention to the measure, which was buried in the final pages of the House Ways and Means Committee’s draft reconciliation bill, starting on page 380.

A markup hearing for the legislation is scheduled to take place on Tuesday at 2:30 pm ET.

The proposal would empower the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits deemed material supporters of terrorism, with only a hollow simulacrum of due process for the accused organizations. It is already illegal for nonprofits to provide material support for terrorism.

“The House is about to hand the Trump administration the ability to strip nonprofits of their 501(c)3 status without any reason or recourse. This is a five-alarm fire for nonprofits nationwide,” said Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future. “If the text of last autumn’s H.R. 9495 is passed in the budget, any organization with goals that do not line up with MAGA can be destroyed with a wink from Trump to the Treasury.”

The measure passed the Republican-controlled House late last year with the support of more than a dozen Democrats, but it never received a vote in the Senate.

“This terribly thought-out legislation means that under the current administration, every environmental, racial justice, LGBTQ+, gender justice, immigration justice, and—particularly—any anti-genocide organization throughout the country may be on the chopping block,” said Holland. “If Democrats capitulate to the wanton destruction of crucial civil society institutions, they had better expect civil society to burn them to the ground for that betrayal.”

The GOP’s renewed push for what opponents have called the “nonprofit killer bill” comes as the Trump administration wages war on nonprofit organizations, threatening to strip them of their tax-exempt status as part of a sweeping attack on the president’s political opponents.

“In the months since inauguration, Trump and his Cabinet have found other means of cracking down on political speech—particularly speech in favor of Palestinians—by deporting student activists and revoking hundreds of student visas. He has already threatened to attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, part of his larger quest to discipline and punish colleges,” journalist Noah Hurowitz wrote for The Intercept late Monday.

“But the nonprofit clause of the tax bill would give the president wider power to go after organizations that stand in his way,” Hurowitz added.

Robert McCaw, government affairs director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Monday that “this provision is the latest in a growing wave of legislative attacks on constitutional rights.”

“CAIR is urging every member of the Ways and Means Committee to VOTE NO on the inclusion of this provision and to support an expected amendment to strike the language,” the group said in a statement. “Three Democratic members of the committee—Reps. Brad Schneider (Ill.), Tom Suozzi (N.Y.), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.)—previously voted in favor of the Nonprofit Killer Bill on the House floor last year. They must reverse course and vote to oppose it in committee.”

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Jake Johnson.

• Trump’s “big beautiful” domestic agenda bill heard in committees as Dems, Repubs and protesters weigh in
• Netanyahu plans full occupation of Gaza and forcible relocation of Palestinians, as some Israelis protest
• Californians rally at hospitals across state to protest Medicaid cuts, Mayor-Elect Barbara Lee joins rally at Oakland’s Highland Hospital
• Episcopal Church is halting a refugee partnership with the federal government, citing commitment to racial justice and reconciliation
• Governor Newsom urges cities to clear homeless encampments, with model ordinance and promise of funding
• Budget airline begins deportation flights from Phoenix AZ

The post Trump’s “big beautiful” domestic agenda bill sparks debate, protest in House committees; Netanyahu planning full occupation of Gaza and relocation of Palestinians – May 13, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

• A repeal of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program’s funding and the delay of the implementation of its Waste Emissions Charge for 10 years.
• A provision to allow methane gas export companies to pay a $1 million fee in exchange for LNG projects being automatically deemed in the public interest. LNG exports increase pollution and supercharge climate change while diminishing domestic energy supplies and raising prices for American consumers.
• Another provision to allow other gas infrastructure developers to receive an "expedited permitting process" from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Natural Gas Act if the applicant pays $10 million or 1 percent of the project's projected cost.
• $1.6B in cuts to the Department of Energy’s Industrial Demonstrations Program, Loans Program Office, and Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations — programs that help to decarbonize and innovate the heavily polluting industrial sector.
• Provisions to cut and repeal features of the federal Buy Clean Initiative, including environmental product declaration assistance and low-embodied carbon labeling to verify the cleanliness of innovative U.S. manufacturers.
• A provision to repeal and cut greenhouse gas corporate reporting, a critical tool to protect leading U.S. manufacturers from foreign carbon tariffs and encourage polluters to modernize.
• Repeal of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which supports renewable energy projects in low-income communities.
• Cuts to programs that lower diesel emissions, reduce pollution at public and private ports, and support domestic electric vehicle manufacturing.
• And the repeal and rescinding of funding for environmental and climate justice block grants that provided financial and technical assistance to support community efforts to reduce pollution.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The following is a statement from Alexandra Adams, chief policy advocacy officer at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council):

“This measure is a direct assault on the health of the American people.

“While it slashes health coverage, it gives polluters free rein to foul the air and water. It guts key programs that protect kids from asthma, the elderly from lung and heart disease, and communities that have been inundated with deadly pollutants for decades.

“Cleaning up smog at ports, reducing the methane spewing from oil wells, and making aluminum smelting a cleaner process have all enjoyed broad bipartisan support. But now, the majority is acting with reckless abandon to try and destroy these efforts.

“And while it slashes much-needed support for clean energy and climate resilience, it would allow fossil fuel companies to pay to get their project approved. That’s not just wrong, it’s un-American.

“Congress should reject this radical bill that would harm the health and welfare of the American people.”

Background

As part of the process of developing the reconciliation bill, the House Energy and Commerce committee released its draft measure last night. Its numerous provisions related to the environment, clean energy and fossil fuel projects include:

• Repeals unobligated Inflation Reduction Act funds across a variety of programs helping frontline communities, supporting bipartisan emissions reduction grants, assisting state environmental work, and more.
• Rescinds funding to implement the bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing Act.
• Rescinds funding for transmission facilities and transmission siting at a time when the U.S. electric grid is in massive need of expansion to meet growing electric demand and maintain reliability.
• Rescinds funding dedicated to environmental review analyses, which would slow down those reviews.
• Allows companies to pay to get a rubber-stamp approval for cross-border pipelines like Keystone XL.
• Repeals the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's clean vehicle standards and the U.S. Department of Transportation's fuel-economy standards.
• Allows gas companies to pay $1 million to the federal government to deem their liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in the public interest (and therefore authorize their export), whether or not these exports are actually in Americans' public interest.
• Allows gas companies to pay an additional fee for expedited permitting of pipelines and LNG infrastructure that would apply not only to federal permits but also would prohibit state and local governments from protecting their rivers, wetlands, and drinking water reservoirs.
• Effectively removes judicial review from gas permits by severely limiting who can sue over permits.
• Uses taxpayer money to compensate fossil fuel and nuclear companies for projects that do not move forward because they lose in court or are found ineligible for permits. Compensation does not apply to any clean energy projects.
• Repeals critical funds for monitoring, technical assistance, and reducing air pollution in schools.
• Claws back hundreds of millions of appropriated dollars in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) energy efficiency, state and community energy programs, and other core DOE functions.
• Cuts funds to make American industrial manufacturing cleaner and more competitive.
• Slashes funding for communities to conduct air quality monitoring, address impacts of climate change and deadly pollution in their neighborhoods, and reduce air pollution in their homes.
• Strips funding for the purchase of zero-emission port equipment under the Clean Ports Program.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

A few years ago, no one would have imagined that one of the biggest democracies in the world would cancel research programs under the pretext that the word ‘diversity’ was in this program.

— French President Emmanuel Macron, Choose Europe for Science Event/Paris, May 5, 2025

America’s shores are experiencing a huge sucking sound as one of the biggest brain drains of modern history hits the country’s best, smartest, heading for Europe on grants, as smiles abound across the pond. European leaders are pinching themselves, unable to believe such good fortune falling into their laps, thanks to the Trump administration “freezing” government funding linked to “diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.”

The EU has officially launched a drive to attract scientists and researchers that America is discarding by the bucketful, see:  “Europe Launches a Drive to Attract Scientists and Researchers After Trump Freezes US Funding,” AP News, May 5, 2025.

This is an extraordinary shrinking of America’s IQ in so many ways that a full understanding is nearly impossible, but it is only too obvious that deliberate destruction of science is the product of a bruised/intimidated mentality that’s seeking payback. There is no other logical explanation.

The EU is licking its chops over this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. According to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, while on stage at Sorbonne University, the EU Executive Branch has already decided to set up a “super grant” program, aimed at “longer-term perspective to the very best in the field.”

Essentially, the EU is cherry-picking some of America’s best brain power. To accomplish this phenomenal opportunity, the Commission is authorizing additional funding of $566 million in 2025-2027, making Europe “a magnet for researchers.” This funding is in addition to the European Research Council’s budget of $18 billion for 2021-2027. Moreover, the EU will “enshrine freedom of scientific research into law” via a new enactment. Europe will not compromise on its long-standing principles of academic freedom.

Above and beyond the EU, according to President Macron, France has also beefed-up commitments to science and research to capitalize on America’s ‘fired’ scientists. France has launched a platform for reception of international researchers: Choose France for Science. President Macron officially christened the platform: “Here in France, research is a priority, innovation a culture, science a limitless horizon. Men and women researchers from all over the world, choose France, choose Europe.”

So far, the US has cut 380 grant projects and thousands of university researchers have been notified that their National Science Foundation funding is canceled, but they know where to turn. Backlash has resulted as doctors, scientists, and researchers hit the streets in “Stand Up for Science” rallies across the country. Astronomy Professor Phil Platt, addressing a crowd, said: “We’re looking at the most aggressively anti-science government the United States has ever had.” UPenn climate scientists Michael Mann: “Science is under siege.” Bill Nye the Science Guy hit the bull’s eye, rhetorically challenging the forces of government: “What are you afraid of?” which may become the rallying cry of opposition throughout the land.

Professionals agree that science has been in the midst of enormous achievements to make lives better than ever, but according to senior staff members of the National Institutes of Health, funding cuts will seriously damage or eliminate major progress on key, very significant, programs for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer, as examples. Unfortunately, this will negatively impact tens of millions of Americans for years to come.

Since World War II, the US has been recognized as a world leader in science and technology. Now, that enviable position is swirling around the drain. According to several key federal workers who spoke at a recent MIT Technology Review, America’s world leadership is literally being dismantled before our eyes. These are research programs that backstop American life. “The US took nearly a century to craft its rich scientific ecosystem; if the unraveling that has taken place over the past month continues, Americans will feel the effects for decades to come.” (“The Foundations of America’s Prosperity Are Being Dismantled,” MIT Technology Review, Feb. 21, 2025)

According to a recent article in The Hill, March 2, 2025: “The administration has issued a multi-pronged, anti-science attack on the health sciences. Possibly the most destructive is the recent slashing of research funding for both NIH and the National Science Foundation.” Here’s what’s at stake: “In 2024, NIH provided more than $37 billion in funding across every state, creating more than 400,000 jobs and generating $92 billion in economic activity. This funding is used for laboratory research, research centers and, most importantly, the education of trainees, the next generation of scientists. Trainees greatly contribute to the research and discoveries even while they are in training.”

If $37 billion in funding produces $92 billion “in economic activity” and “supports 400.000 jobs,” what’s up with destroying a greater than 2-for-1 return on investment? What’s missing from this equation, or is it simply a matter of looney-tunes, not knowing which way is up? Study after study after study, and more studies, prove that governmental funding of science generates returns in-excess of what private enterprise achieves. For example, governmental science funding played the crucial leading role in creation of the internet. What’s that worth?

It should be widely recognized and brought to the public’s attention that so much is wrong, so much at stake with anti-science rhetoric, recklessly cutting science budgets, elimination of entire programs, and loud-mouthed threats, demoralizing the public about science. It’s difficult to know how to respond, and of course, this is the intention behind the rapidity of a well-orchestrated blind-siding all parties, unable to collect ones’ thoughts type of assault on major, hugely productive governmental programs that protect life. This type of assault is comparable to a Panzer Division Blitzkrieg. Nobody has enough time to react.

What’s the impact of Blitzkriegs demolishing science? According to an article in Science, May 2, 2025: “Trump’s Proposed Budget Would Mean ‘Disastrous’ Cuts to Science.” For those interested, this article delineates agencies subject to cuts. Meanwhile, the brain drain is in full throttle motion. Of interest, an article in the prestigious science journal Nature, March 25, 2025: A poll found that 75% of 1,600 respondents, including 1,200 US scientists said: “Yes, they are looking for jobs in Europe and Canada.” And there’s considerable anecdotal evidence that current post-graduates are looking overseas.

And there’s this: “Trump Proposed Unprecedented Budget Cuts to US Science,” Nature, May 2, 2025: “Huge reductions, if enacted, could have ‘catastrophic’ effects on US competitiveness and scientific pipeline… The message that this sends to young scientists is that this country is not a place for you,’ says Michael Lubell, a physicist who tracks science policy at the City University of New York in New York City. ‘If I were starting my career, I would be out of here in a heartbeat.”

The word is out. Scientists will find opportunities galore. Science has never been more sought after in Europe and Canada and Australia, which ranks 5th in the world for trust in science. After all, the world is experiencing the most exciting era of scientific achievement of all time, and the EU intends to take over leadership, stripping the US of its 75-year crown. It’s been laid in their lap.

Moreover, according to the National Science Foundation, China has already overtaken America in several key scientific metrics. Going forward, the EU has America to thank for reinvigorating its science and technology effort more so than ever before, as they challenge China with much more enthusiasm for top billing. The U.S. lit their fuse, making EU science and technology great again!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Robert Hunziker.

One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle.
—James Otis, Revolutionary War activist, on the Writs of Assistance, 1761

What the Founders rebelled against—armed government agents invading homes without cause—we are now being told to accept in the so-called name of law and order.

Imagine it: it’s the middle of the night. Your neighborhood is asleep. Suddenly, your front door is splintered by battering rams. Shadowy figures flood your home, screaming orders, pointing guns, threatening violence. You and your children are dragged out into the night—barefoot, in your underwear, in the rain.

Your home is torn apart, your valuables seized, and your sense of safety demolished.

But this isn’t a robbery by lawless criminals.

This is what terror policing looks like in Trump’s America: raids by night, flashbangs at dawn, mistaken identities, and shattered lives.

On April 24, 2025, in Oklahoma City, 20 heavily armed federal agents from ICE, the FBI, and DHS kicked in the door of a home where a woman and her three daughters—all American citizens—were sleeping. They were forced out of bed at gunpoint and made to wait in the rain while agents ransacked the house, confiscating their belongings.

It was the wrong house and the wrong family.

There were no apologies. No compensation. No accountability.

This is the new face of American policing, and it’s about to get so much worse thanks to President Trump’s latest executive order, which aims to eliminate federal oversight and empower local law enforcement to act with impunity.

Titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” the executive order announced on April 28, 2025, removes restraints on police power, offers enhanced federal protections for officers accused of misconduct, expands access to military-grade equipment, and nullifies key oversight provisions from prior reform efforts.

Trump’s supporters have long praised his efforts to deregulate business and government under the slogan of “no handcuffs.” But when that logic is applied to law enforcement, the result isn’t freedom—it’s unchecked power.

What it really means is no restraints on police power, while the rest of us are left with fewer rights, less recourse, and a constitution increasingly ignored behind the barrel of a gun.

This isn’t just a political shift. It’s a constitutional unraveling that hands law enforcement a blank check: more weapons, more power, and fewer consequences.

The result is not safety; it’s state-sanctioned violence.

It’s a future in which no home is safe, no knock is required, and no officer is ever held accountable.

That future is already here.

We’ve entered an era in which federal agents can destroy your home, traumatize your family, and violate the Fourth Amendment with impunity. And the courts have said: that’s just how it works.

These rulings reflect a growing doctrine of unaccountability enshrined by the courts and now supercharged by the Trump administration.

Trump wants to give police even more immunity, ushering in a new era of police brutality, lawlessness, and the reckless deployment of lethal force on unarmed civilians.

This is how the rights of ordinary Americans get trampled under the boots of unchecked power.

There was a time in America when a person’s home was a sanctuary, protected by the Fourth Amendment from unlawful searches and seizures.

That promise is dead.

We have returned to the era of the King’s Writ—blanket search powers once used by British soldiers to invade colonial homes without cause. As James Otis warned in 1761, such writs “annihilate the privilege” of privacy and due process, allowing agents of the state to enter homes “when they please.”

Trump’s new executive order revives this tyranny in modern form: armored vehicles, night raids, no-knock warrants, federal immunity. It empowers police to act without restraint, and it rewards those who brutalize with impunity.

Even more alarming, the order sets the stage for future legislation that could effectively codify qualified immunity into federal law, making it nearly impossible for victims of police violence to sue.

This is how constitutional protections are dismantled—not in one dramatic blow, but in a thousand raids, a thousand broken doors, a thousand courts that look the other way.

Let’s not pretend we’re safe. Who will protect us from the police when the police have become the law unto themselves?

The war on the American people is no longer metaphorical.

Government agents can now kick in your door without warning, shoot your dog, point a gun at your children, and suffer no legal consequences—so long as they claim it was a “reasonable” mistake. They are judge, jury, and executioner.

With Trump’s new order, the architecture of a police state is no longer theoretical. It is being built in real time. It is being normalized.

Nowhere is this threat more visible than in the unholy alliance between ICE and militarized police forces, a convergence of two of the most dangerous arms of the modern security state.

Together, they’ve created a government apparatus that acts first and justifies itself later, if at all. And it runs counter to everything the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent: punishment without trial, surveillance without suspicion, and power without accountability.

When ICE agents armed with military-grade equipment conduct predawn raids alongside SWAT teams, with little to no accountability, the result is not public safety. It is state terror. And it’s exactly the kind of unchecked power the Constitution was written to prevent.

The Constitution is intended to serve as a shield, particularly the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. But in this new reality, the government has nullified that shield.

All of America is fast becoming a Constitution-free zone.

The Founders were aware of the dangers of unchecked power. That’s why they gave us the Fourth Amendment. But rights are only as strong as the public’s willingness to defend them.

If we allow the government to turn our homes into war zones—if we continue to reward police for lawless raids, ignore the courts for rubber-stamping abuse, and cheer political leaders who promise “no more handcuffs”—we will lose the last refuge of freedom: the right to be left alone.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the Constitution cannot protect you if the government no longer follows it—and if the courts no longer enforce it.

The knock may never come again. Just the crash of a door. The sound of boots. And the silence that follows.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

In the absence of any measures taken by the New Zealand government to respond to the genocide being committed by Israel in Gaza, Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick is doing the principled thing by trying to apply countervailing pressure on Israel to stop its brutal actions in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

New Zealand is a state party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

As a contracting party New Zealand has a clear obligation to respond to a genocide when it is indicated and which it must “undertake to prevent and to punish”.

• READ MORE:  ‘Wiped out’: Israel kills ‘entire family’ in latest attacks on Gaza
• Other articles by John Hobbs

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024, deemed that a “plausible genocide” is occurring in Gaza. That was a year ago. Thousands of Palestinians have died since the ICJ’s determination.

The New Zealand government has failed its responsibilities under the Genocide Convention by applying no pressure to influence Israel’s military actions in Gaza. There are a number of interventions New Zealand could have chosen to take.

For example, a United Nations resolution which New Zealand co-sponsored (UNSC 2334) when it was a non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2015-16 required states to distinguish in their trading arrangements between Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank and the rest of Israel.

New Zealand could have extended this to all trading arrangements with Israel.

Diplomatic pressure needed
Diplomatic pressure could have been put on Israel by expelling the Israeli ambassador to New Zealand. Finally, New Zealand could have shown well-needed solidarity with Palestine by conferring statehood recognition.

In contrast, Swarbrick is looking to bring her member’s Bill to Parliament to apply sanctions against Israel for its ongoing illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza).

The context is the UN General Assembly’s support for the ICJ’s recent report which requires that Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem comes to an end.

New Zealand, along with 123 other general assembly members, supported the ICJ decision. It is now up to UN states to live up to what they voted for.

Swarbrick’s Bill, the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill, responds to this request, in the absence of any intervention by the New Zealand government. The Bill is based on the Russian Sanctions Act (2022), brought forward by then Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta, to apply pressure on Russia to cease its military invasion of Ukraine.

While Swarbrick’s Bill has the full support of the opposition MPs from Labour and Te Pāti Māori she needs six government MPs to support the Bill going forward for its first reading.

Andrea Vance, in a recent article in the Sunday Star-Times, called Swarbrick’s Bill “grandstanding”. Vance argues that the Greens’ Bill adopts “simplistic moral assumptions about the righteousness of the oppressed [but] ignores the complexity of the conflict.”

‘Confict complexity’ not complicated
The “complexity of the conflict” is a recurring theme which dresses up a brutal and illegal occupation by Israel over the Palestinians, as complicated.

It is hardly complicated. The history tells us so. In 1947, the UN supported the partition of Palestine, against the will of the indigenous Palestinian people, who comprised 70 perent of the population and owned 94 percent of the land.

In 1948, Jewish paramilitary groups drove more than 700,000 Palestinian people out of their homeland into bordering countries (Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, the UAE) and beyond, where they remain as refugees.

Finally, the 1967 illegal occupation by Israel of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. This occupation, which multiple UN resolutions has termed illegal, is now over 58 years old.

This is not “complicated”. One nation state, Israel, exercises total power over a people who have been dispossessed from their land and who simply have no power.

It is the unwillingness of countries like New Zealand and its Anglosphere/Five-Eyes allies (United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia) and the inability of the UN to enforce its resolutions on Israel, which makes it “complicated”.

Historian on Gaza genocide
One of Israel’s most distinguished historians, Emeritus Professor Avi Shlaim at Oxford University, in his recently published book Genocide in Gaza: Israel’s Long War on Palestine, now chooses to call the situation in Gaza “genocide”.

In arriving at this position, he points to the language and narratives being adopted by Israeli politicians:

“Israeli President Isaac Herzog proclaimed that there are no innocents in Gaza. No innocents among the 50,000 people who were killed and nearly 20,000 children.

“There are quotes from [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] that are genocidal, as well as from his former Minister of Defence, Yoav Gallant, who said we are up against ‘human animals’.

“I hesitated to call things genocide before October 2023, but what tipped the balance for me was when Israel stopped all humanitarian aid into Gaza. They are using starvation as a weapon of war. That’s genocide.”

There is growing concern among commentators about the ability of international rules-based order to function and hold individuals and states to account.

Institutions such as the UN, the ICJ and the ICC are simply unable to enforce their decisions. This should not come as a surprise, however, as the structure of the UN system, established at the end of the Second World War was designed to be weak by the victors, with regard to its enforcement ability.

Time NZ supports determinations
It is time that New Zealand supported these same institutions by honouring and looking to enforce their determinations.

Accordingly, New Zealand needs to play its part in holding Israel to account for the atrocities it is inflicting on the Palestinian people and stand behind and support the Palestinian right to self-determination.

Swarbrick is absolutely right to introduce her Bill.

At the very least it says that New Zealand does care about the plight of the Palestinian people and is willing to stand behind them. It is the morally correct thing to do and incumbent on the government to provide support to Swarbrick’s Bill — and not just six of its members.

John Hobbs is a doctoral candidate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Legal experts and Māori advocates say the fight to protect Te Tiriti is only just beginning — as the controversial Treaty Principles Bill is officially killed in Parliament.

The bill — which seeks to redefine the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi — sparked a nationwide hīkoi and received more than 300,000 written submissions — with 90 percent of submitters opposing it.

Parliament confirmed the voting down of the bill yesterday, with only ACT supporting it proceeding further.

• READ MORE: The Treaty Principles Bill : Here’s what’s in it
• The Regulatory Standards Bill: What you need to know
• What you need to know about Māori wards
• Māori ward councillors prepare for election and referendum

The ayes were 11, and the noes 112.

Riana Te Ngahue, a young Māori lawyer whose bite-sized breakdowns of complex issues — like the Treaty Principles Bill — went viral on social media, said she was glad the bill was finally gone.

“It’s just frustrating that we’ve had to put so much time and energy into something that’s such a huge waste of time and money. I’m glad it’s over, but also disappointed because there are so many other harmful bills coming through — in the environment space, Oranga Tamariki, and others.”

Most New Zealanders not divided
Te Ngahue said the Justice Committee’s report — which showed 90 percent of submitters opposed the bill, 8 percent supported it, and 2 percent were unstated in their position — proved that most New Zealanders did not feel divided about Te Tiriti.

“If David Seymour was right in saying that New Zealanders feel divided about this issue, then we would’ve seen significantly more submissions supporting his bill.

“He seemed pretty delusional to keep pushing the idea that New Zealanders were behind him, because if that was true, he would’ve got a lot more support.”

However, Te Ngahue said it was “wicked” to see such overwhelming opposition.

“Especially because I know for a lot of people, this was their first time ever submitting on a bill. That’s what I think is really exciting.”

She said it was humbling to know her content helped people feel confident enough to participate in the process.

“I really didn’t expect that many people to watch my video, let alone actually find it helpful. I’m still blown away by people who say they only submitted because of it — that it showed them how.”

Te Ngahue said while the bill was made to be divisive there had been “a huge silver lining”.

“Because a lot of people have actually made the effort to get clued up on the Treaty of Waitangi, whereas before they might not have bothered because, you know, nothing was really that in your face about it.”

“There’s a big wave of people going ‘I actually wanna get clued up on [Te Tiriti],’ which is really cool.”

‘Fight isn’t over’
Māori lawyer Tania Waikato, whose own journey into social media advocacy empowered many first-time submitters, said she was in an “excited and celebratory” mood.

“We all had a bit of a crappy summer holiday because of the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill both being released for consultation at the same time. A lot of us were trying to fit advocacy around summer holidays and looking after our tamariki, so this feels like a nice payoff for all the hard mahi that went in.”

She said the “overwhelming opposition” sent a powerful message.

“I think it’s a clear message that Aotearoa as a whole sees Te Tiriti as part of this country’s constitutional foundation. You can’t just come in and change that on a whim, like David Seymour and the ACT Party have tried to do.

“Ninety percent of people who got off their butt and made a submission have clearly rejected the divisive and racist rhetoric that party has pushed.”

Despite the win, she said the fight was far from over.

“If anything, this is really just beginning. We’ve got the Regulatory Standards Bill that’s going to be introduced at some point before June. That particular bill will do what the Treaty Principle’s Bill was aiming to do, but in a different and just more sneaky way.

‘The next fight’
“So for me, that’s definitely the next fight that we all gotta get up for again.”

Waikato, who also launched a petition in March calling for the free school lunch programme contract to be overhauled, said allowing the Treaty Principles Bill to get this far in the first place was a “waste of time and money.”

“Its an absolutely atrocious waste of taxpayers dollars, especially when we’ve got issues like the school lunches that I am advocating for on the other side.”

“So for me, the fight’s far from over. It’s really just getting started.”

ACT Party leader David Seymour continued to defend the Treaty Principles Bill during its second reading on Thursday, and said the debate over the treaty’s principles was far from over.

After being the only party to vote in favour of the bill, Seymour said not a single statement had grappled with the content of the bill — despite all the debate.

Asked if his party had lost in this nationwide conversation, he said they still had not heard a good argument against it.

‘We’ll never give up on equal rights.”

He said there were lots of options for continuing, and the party’s approach would be made clear before the next election

Eyes on local elections – ActionStation says the mahi continues
Community advocacy group ActionStation’s director Kassie Hartendorp, who helped spearhead campaigns like “Together for Te Tiriti”, said her team was feeling really positive.

“It’s been a lot of work to get to this point, but we feel like this is a very good day for our country.”

At the end of the hīkoi mō Te Tiriti, ActionStation co-delivered a Ngāti Whakaue rangatahi led petition opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, with more than 290,000 signatures — the second largest petition in Aotearoa’s history.

They also hosted a live watch party for the bill’s second reading on Facebook, joined by Te Tiriti experts Dr Carwyn Jones and Tania Waikato.

Hartendorp said it was amazing to see people from all over Aotearoa coming together to reject the bill.

“It’s no longer a minority view that we should respect, but more and more and more people realise that it’s a fundamental part of our national identity that should be respected and not trampled every time a government wants to win power,” she said.

Looking to the future, Hartendorp said Thursday’s victory was only one milestone in a longer campaign.

Why people fought back
“There was a future where this bill hadn’t gone down — this could’ve ended very differently. The reason we’re here now is because people fought back.

“People from all backgrounds and ages said: ‘We respect Te Tiriti o Waitangi.’

“We know it’s essential, it’s a part of our history, our past, our present, and our future. And we want to respect that together.”

Hartendorp said they were now gearing up to fight against essentially another version of the Treaty Principles Bill — but on a local level.

“In October, people in 42 councils around the country will vote on whether or not to keep their Māori ward councillors, and we think this is going to be a really big deal.”

The Regulatory Standards Bill is also being closely watched, Hartendorp said, and she believed it could mirror the “divisive tactics” seen with the Treaty Principles Bill.

“Part of the strategy for David Seymour and the ACT Party was to win over the public mandate by saying the public stands against Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That debate is still on,” she said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The post Governor Vetoes Bill to Grant California Tribal Police Peace Officer Status appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

The passage of this historic legislation was celebrated by Prime Minister Modi on X, stating that it would mark a significant milestone for his government together with the abrogation of Article 370, the Citizenship Amendment Act, and the Ram Temple construction. Very grandly put, but the legislation is highly contentious and complicated in its purpose, consequences, and outlook on Waqf properties spread across 9.4 lakh acres across India, making them the third-largest landholder in the country after Railways and Defence Forces.

What Is Waqf, and Why Does It Matter?