Governor JB Pritzker gave a lesson in bold resistance when he gave a clear, bold message to Trump: Stay away from Chicago. We don’t want you, we don’t need you. If you have to send troops anywhere, send them to red states, where the crime rate is higher than blue states.
Archives for the month of: August, 2025
Amos Schocken is the publisher of Haaretz, an Israeli publication founded by his grandfather, who was a publisher and founder of a chain of department stores in Germany who left for Palestine in 1934. His father edited Haaretz for 50 years and served in the Knesset.
He wrote the following editorial, which was titled “A Palestinian State Would Rescue Israel. It Would Not Be a Reward for Hamas.”
He began:
The Netanyahu government is already perpetrating a Nakba against the Palestinians of the West Bank, and is planning to inflict another on the Palestinians of Gaza. It’s time to end the disaster that the settlement movement has inflicted on Israel, end the war and establish a Palestinian state.
It’s now clear what plan Benjamin Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir are following: A Nakba for all the Gaza Strip’s Palestinian residents. The Netanyahu government seeks to throw all the Palestinians out of their homes and pack them into a section of southern Gaza in inhumane conditions. It’s also looking for countries willing to take them in.
The government is already perpetrating a Nakba against the Palestinian residents of the occupied territory in the West Bank, via the settlers and the army. They’re throwing Palestinians out of their homes, perhaps with the goal of concentrating them all in Area A, the part of the West Bank that the Oslo Accords assigned to full Palestinian control.
The flip side of these Nakbas is annexing the territory and building Israeli settlements in all the areas cleared of Palestinians. This violates international law and the United Nations Charter, which states that territory may not be acquired through war, even a victorious war. It’s hard to see how, once the government’s plan is implemented, it will be possible to live in Israel.
Normal life in Israel can only exist if the 100-year war with the Palestinians ends. And today, it’s accepted around the world, including in the Arab world, that this war should end with the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The New York Declaration – the concluding statement of last month’s conference at UN headquarters in New York, led by France and Saudi Arabia with many other countries taking part – is the basis for ending the conflict.
The declaration states that the participants “agreed to take collective action to end the war in Gaza, to achieve a just, peaceful and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the effective implementation of the two-state solution, and to build a better future for Palestinians, Israelis and all peoples of the region.
It adds: “Recent developments have highlighted, once again, and more than ever, the terrifying human toll and the grave implications for regional and international peace and security of the persistence of the Middle East conflict. Absent decisive measures towards the two-state solution and robust international guarantees, the conflict will deepen and regional peace will remain elusive.”
Turkey’s representative at the conference said that given Israel’s conduct over decades, Palestinian militant organizations will not give up their arms without the establishment of an independent, sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state in the 1967 boundaries with East Jerusalem as its capital, or pursuant to the provisions of a peace treaty.
The final statement was approved by France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Norway, Qatar, Senegal, Spain, Britain, the European Union and the Arab League.
The declaration calls for an immediate end to Israel’s war in Gaza and backs the efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States to mediate a cease-fire deal between the parties. It stresses the need for a cease-fire, the return of all the hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. After the cease-fire, a temporary committee will be set up to run Gaza under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority.
The declaration says Gaza is an integral part of the Palestinian state and must be united with the West Bank. It adds that governance, law enforcement and security throughout this state will rest exclusively with the Palestinian Authority, backed by international support. It welcomes the PA’s call for “one state, one government, one law, one gun” and pledges to support this.
The declaration also adopts the conference participants’ proposals for full cooperation with the cases against Israel being conducted at international courts.
Israel’s leaders claim that recognizing a Palestinian state would reward Hamas for its attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023. But this wouldn’t be a reward for Hamas, because Hamas is like Smotrich but in reverse: It opposes the existence of a Jewish state in the region.
If anything, a Palestinian state would be a reward for Israel, which would be freed of the brutal apartheid regime over the Palestinians that Israeli governments, always serving the interests of the Gush Emunim settlement movement, have carried out in the occupied territories for 58 years now. Palestinian terror is the result of the situation that Israeli settlements created in the territories. And despite an occupying power’s obligation to enable residents of occupied territory to live normal lives, Israel has done the opposite, heaping abuse on the Palestinians.
Fourteen years ago, in November 2011, I published an op-ed in Haaretz, “The Necessary Elimination of Israeli Democracy.” I quoted a speech to the Knesset by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in January 1993.
“Our assessment is that Iran today has the appropriate manpower and sufficient resources to acquire nuclear arms within 10 years,” Rabin said. “Together with others in the international community, we are monitoring Iran’s nuclear activity. They are not concealing the fact that the possibility that Iran will possess nuclear weapons is worrisome, and this is one of the reasons that we must take advantage of the window of opportunity and advance toward peace.”
With a state, security cooperation with the PA will only grow stronger, and there will be no reason for terrorism.
I said that Israel had adopted a political strategy whose implementation began with the Oslo Accords. This included ending the preferences given the settlement movement and improving the treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens. And if things had developed differently, I wrote, the Iran situation might look different today. But this strategy clashed with a stronger ideology – that of Gush Emunim.
That ideology saw the Six-Day War as a continuation of the War of Independence. It held that the borders acquired in the 1967 war are the right ones for Israel, and it imposed a hard-line policy on the Palestinians in the occupied territories based on depriving them of rights, installing apartheid and encouraging them to leave.
This is an ideology driven by religious rather than political concerns, and it assumes that the Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jews. Because of this, Israel’s Arab citizens are also exposed to discrimination and the risk of being stripped of their citizenship. This ideology has no problem with criminal acts because it rests on what it deems a higher law that lacks a connection to either Israeli or international law. That’s how it led to Rabin’s murder.
I said in that piece that since 1967, no group in Israel has had as much ideological power as Gush Emunim, which has also gained American support and influenced the legislation aimed at undermining the Supreme Court and human rights groups. I warned that this unstable, dangerous situation prevents Israel from realizing its full potential and could lead to the collapse of the peace agreement with Egypt, a third intifada and Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, just as Rabin warned.
Today, the time has come to finally end the disaster that Gush Emunim and the settlement movement have brought down on Israel by denying it the possibility of agreeing to a Palestinian state and requiring it to fight the Palestinians, who, just like the Jews, still want sovereignty, independence and responsibility for their own fate and national honor.
One argument made against establishing a Palestinian state is that it will threaten Israel’s security. For instance, Gilad Erdan, Israel’s previous UN ambassador, considers such a state an immediate existential threat to Israel. “Any area in the hills of Judea and Samaria that is handed over could be used tomorrow morning as a zero-distance base for launching missiles and ground invasions that would threaten the heart of the country,” he wrote in the Israel Hayom daily on June 29.
But this is a ludicrous claim. The Palestinian state will be demilitarized, the existing security cooperation between the PA and Israel will only grow stronger, and when the Palestinians become citizens of their own country – and we have to assume that the connection with Israel will give them certain advantages – there will be no reason for terrorism, only for good relations.
If Netanyahu understood the blow that October 7 was to his policy, he would opt for a state led by the PA, which Hamas hates.
Netanyahu has consistently opposed any involvement by the PA in resolving the situation in Gaza, contrary to the New York Declaration, which views such involvement favorably. He has two arguments. One is that the PA supports terror – a false claim, since Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said explicitly at his inauguration that he opposes violence and will pursue diplomacy only. The second argument is that the PA education system promotes hostility to Israel.
The PA is convenient for Israel’s government because if Israel were responsible for the 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank, it would need an enormous budget. And Netanyahu’s complaints about the PA education system are utterly hypocritical.
First, he never sought a meeting with Abbas in an effort to fix the things he doesn’t like about the PA. And have you ever heard Netanyahu talk about the education of the “hilltop youth” or other settlers who abuse Palestinians in the service of the government’s interests? Haaretz has reported on their violent actions nonstop, but that doesn’t interest Netanyahu.
Or have you ever heard him urge his Knesset colleagues to do what should be obvious in any democracy? That is, leave prominent Arab Israeli lawmaker Ayman Odeh alone, because his presence in the Knesset is important to Israel. No, Netanyahu hasn’t done that either. So he has no grounds to complain about the Palestinians’ education.
How did we get here? The answer is clear: Netanyahu is spearheading a policy that is dangerous to Israel’s future and to its citizens, who are the victims of the ongoing Palestinian terror and are now loathed by many people around the world. His policy is also dangerous to the Jewish people, who are suffering from rising antisemitism due to the death and destruction in Gaza. The policy he has implemented throughout his terms as prime minister completely ignores the Palestinians’ aspirations for self-determination and political independence.
Netanyahu has supported the ultra-Orthodox and the settlers, who continue to do as they please with the country. No decent person would dare form a government with Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, extremist settlers who hate Arabs. But Netanyahu’s government guidelines with them say that only Jews have rights throughout the Land of Israel. In this way, too, he invited the October 7 attack. Nor would any decent person facing charges in court dare assault the legal system the way he has.
Netanyahu shamelessly continues to postpone any discussion of postwar arrangements. If he were smart and understood that October 7 was a decisive blow to his policy of ignoring Palestinian interests, he would have decided on his own to establish a Palestinian state led by the PA – which Hamas hates – enshrined in suitable agreements. If he had decided on this quickly, it would have spared the lives of many Palestinians and Israeli soldiers.
In January 2024, I published an op-ed in Haaretz saying that Israel would win if it got all the hostages back – even in exchange for Palestinian prisoners – and agreed to then-U.S. President Joe Biden’s stance favoring the establishment of a Palestinian state. A month later, I reiterated this in an op-ed whose headline called for a return of the hostages and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In response to Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations in September 2024, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi held a press conference at the UN with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa. Safadi said that “all of us in the Arab world here, we want a peace in which Israel lives in peace and security … in the context of ending the occupation, withdrawing from Arab territory, allowing for the emergence of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 lines. … That’s our narrative.”
He continued: “After 30 years of efforts to convince people that peace is possible, this Israeli government killed it. … We want peace, and we have laid out a plan for peace. Ask any Israeli official, what is their plan for peace? You will get nothing because they are only thinking of the first step – we are going to go and destroy Gaza, inflame the West Bank, destroy Lebanon. … We have no partner for peace in Israel.”
The past 30 years have largely been Netanyahu’s watch. And he has brought disaster down on Israel.
Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill codified a budget that included devastating cuts to the National Institutes of Health. Chalkbeat Colorado recounted the damage that cuts to the National Institutes of Health will do to the local economy and medical research in Colorado.
Chalkbeat reported:
Federally funded research grants have paved the way to life-saving treatments and contribute millions to local economies.
But, according to a new study, the 2026 Trump administration budget cuts could halt that research, result in job losses, and hurt the economy in every U.S. congressional district.
These estimates from the Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project say slashing National Institutes of Health grants, which are just 1% of the federal budget, by $18 billion within Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” would result in $46 billion in lost economic revenue and over 200,000 jobs lost nationwide.
A map from the Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP) showing the projected economic impact of NIH budget cuts in 2026 across the United States. (Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP))
The mapping project researchers compared active grants within the 2020-24 budget years to the projected 2026 budget changes.
In Colorado, budget cuts are estimated to amount to $657 million in economic losses and 2,800 jobs in the state’s eight congressional districts. Much of this research is conducted by universities across the state, with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus expected to lose the most funding.
Advocates for the grants have said that federally funded scientific and medical research improves public health, helps spur innovation, creates jobs, and boosts the economy.
The report says the White House budget cuts research to life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and potential cures. That includes a 39% cut to the National Cancer Institute, a 38% cut to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and a 42% cut to the National Institute on Aging.
The report adds that NIH grants “contributed to more than 99% of the 300-plus drugs approved by the FDA from 2010-2019, including drugs to treat metastatic breast cancer, reduce birth defects caused by viruses, and novel antibiotics to treat multidrug resistant ‘superbugs.’”
Richard Rothstein recently wrote a book about how to resist the illegal, unjust, and tyrannical actions of the Trump regime. Protests and marches are good but not enough, he argues. It’s time to find more powerful ways to express opposition to tyranny, to dictatorship, to a police state.
Please share this article with friends and social media. And please suggest your own ideas for direct action.
My 2017 book, The Color of Law, showed that “de facto,” accidental, neighborhood segregation is a myth; in truth, government purposely enforced it, creating racial inequality in wealth, education, employment, health, and criminal justice. Readers asked, “What can we do about it now?”
So in 2023, Leah Rothstein and I published a sequel, Just Action, that showed how community groups could remedy this unconstitutional system. Intended for normal times, its suggestions for direct action have become urgent when Trump’s unlawful policies in housing and other sectors call for resistance. Just Action and follow-up articles describe how to create diverse committees that can embrace all who seek to preserve democracy.
Trump has taken full control of federal power—executive, legislative, and judicial—to:
- destroy our already inadequate safety net;
- gut health and environmental protections;
- promote racial and ethnic inequality;
- threaten the security of immigrants and their citizen children;
- suppress free speech and independent journalism; and
- prohibit schools from teaching historical truth.
He’s now moved to rig elections in 2026 and 2028, so will no longer depend on popular support. Marches, rallies, and media outrage remain necessary but insufficient. We are now called upon to do more than protest, but to act. What John Lewis called “good trouble, necessary trouble” becomes essential. As Trump “floods the zone” with so many illegal policies that we can’t keep up, so should resistance emerge in many sectors and communities to throw his authoritarianism off balance.
Most resistance will be law-abiding, some with civil disobedience. A decent society won’t be restored from Washington. A movement with a strong popular base can only begin with committees that pursue opportunities in their own neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
Here are two from Just Action, with details and many more examples in the book:
- Regional housing centers have insufficient resources to uncover much discrimination and Trump has made it worse by defunding them. Volunteers can do the uncovering, then bypass the Justice Department by taking cases directly to court. They can campaign to force apartment owners and realtors who discriminate to commit to reform and organize boycotts of those who refuse.
- The administration no longer deems policies unlawful if they unintentionally but needlessly harm historically disadvantaged groups. For example, property assessments usually create higher tax rates for homeowners and landlords who live in lower-income areas. Community groups can campaign to make county assessment practices fair.
Committees with actions like these will develop experience that builds toward resistance in other sectors and a national movement.
After Just Action’s publication, Washington State challenged the federal refusal to remedy housing discrimination. Volunteers documented 80,000 home deeds that banned residents who weren’t considered “white,” causing large wealth gaps between descendants of white people and others. A statewide organizing campaign won a state subsidy for home purchases by members of the previously excluded groups; 300 households have now received assistance, averaging over $100,000 each. Leah Rothstein has described how the reform was won. Groups elsewhere can mobilize for similar victories.
- The Justice Department has cancelled settlements that required police to end abusive practices. Local groups can organize “blue ribbon” commissions to adopt the agreements and then campaign to grant them legal power to monitor and enforce compliance.
- The administration has threatened public schools that teach “divisive” history, such as slaves’ suffering, Native Americans’ extermination, Japanese Americans’ World War II internment, or racial inequality’s origins. Local committees can organize support for teachers told to avoid these topics and for school board candidates who have pledged to protect truth in curriculum.
- The Greyhound bus company will not permit warrantless or suspicionless immigration arrests on buses or in its stations. The Los Angeles Dodgers prohibits ICE from entering its parking lots without a warrant. Retail stores, markets, and restaurants should post signs announcing a similar prohibition. Customers can organize to ensure that it is advertised and enforced.
Campaigning for democratic practices starts by inviting friends and associates to plan. But we mostly interact only with people like ourselves. That’s no formula for successful resistance. Just Action begins by describing those who reached beyond their bubbles. We report on a Chicago artist who photographed pairs of nearly identical homes, one in a North Side white area, the other in a South Side Black one. She then invited residents to meet their “map twins.” Many agreed and were astonished by how much they had in common. We also recount six churches in Winston-Salem—three white and three Black—whose ministers created an interracial discussion and social group of 40 parishioners, divided equally by race. It eventually took direct action, successfully campaigning for a police review board and school curriculum reform.
Leah Rothstein reported recently on a project that organizes monthly dinner meetings of 25 residents from Marin City, California—with a mostly Black population—and 25 from its predominantly white suburbs. Reforms resulted in education, policing, health care, the arts, and housing. They model what diverse resistance cells can achieve.
Indivisible, the organization that led “Hands Off” and “No Kings” rallies this year, has concluded that while vocal opposition to Trump remains necessary, successful resistance must evolve to direct action. Indivisible is now conducting online training to teach and inspire local committees to undertake acts of resistance. You can watch previous sessions and register for subsequent ones here. These should offer more examples of direct actions you could take.
Please click here to share other acts of resistance, so Leah and I can promote them.
This is a sickening video of Trump’s last Cabinet meeting. The members of the Cabinet competed to see who could be the most obsequious to Dear Leader.
Dr. Jeremy Faust writes a very informative blog called Inside Medicine about federal public health policy and developments. Yesterday was a day filled with drama and chaos.
Robert F. Kennedy, a dedicated foe of vaccines, decided he could not work with the newly appointed Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Susan Monarez. She was sworn in on July 31.
Apparently they disagree over vaccine policy. Monarez recognizes that vaccines are safe and effective, but her boss RFK thinks they are dangerous and cause autism.
He ousted her. She refused to resign. In short order, RFK got Trump to fire her.
When it was clear that RFK had taken control of the CDC, its top leaders resigned. Dr. Faust posted their resignation letters on his Substack blog.
Previously, RFK had fired the expert advisory panel on vaccines and replaced them with a group that included well-known vaccine deniers. RFK announced yesterday that he would place restrictions on eligibility for the new COVID-19 vaccine (those over 65 can get it, but anyone younger has to prove they need it). RFK told Trump that he expects to release a paper on the causes of autism in September, and his critics expect more undermining of the safety of vaccines.
All in all, an ugly demonstration that RFK is utterly unqualified to be the nation’s leading public health official. Given his ignorance of science and his ideological rigidity, he is in fact the leading danger to public health.
Moments ago, Inside Medicine broke news that three top career CDC officials have resigned from the agency, hours after the Washington Post reported that newly-confirmed Director Dr. Susan Monarez has been ousted, having run afoul of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Here are the emails that each of the officials sent to their CDC colleagues by Dr. Deb Houry, Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, and Dr. Daniel Jernigan.
Dr. Deb Houry, Deputy Director for Program and Science/Chief Medical Officer:
“Over the past decade, I have had the honor of working for six CDC directors, from both Republican and Democratic administrations. To me, these leaders and my colleagues were not “Red” or “Blue,” but red, white, and blue—united in the shared purpose of protecting health and saving lives in our beloved country and globally. I have served during this time in various leadership roles, including as CDC’s senior-most career leader and lead for the transition as the current administration assumed office.
I’ve always been proud to be part of an institution that is committed to using science and data to drive our life-saving work and inform our messaging. We have worked tirelessly to enhance openness through public-facing data dashboards, providing real-time access to trends for conditions such as mpox, H5N1, measles, and overdose deaths, allowing the public to make informed decisions. Additionally, I have witnessed the rapid translation of science into action, with some Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWRs) being published within a week of an outbreak.
For the good of the nation and the world, the science at CDC should never be censored or subject to political pauses or interpretations. Vaccines save lives—this is an indisputable, well-established, scientific fact. Informed consent and shared decision-making must focus not only on the risks but also on the true, life-saving benefits that vaccines provide to individuals and communities. It is, of course, important to question, analyze, and review research and surveillance, but this must be done by experts with the right skills and experience, without bias, and considering the full weight of scientific evidence. Recently, the overstating of risks and the rise of misinformation have cost lives, as demonstrated by the highest number of U.S. measles cases in 30 years and the violent attack on our agency.
CDC must continue its work on all diseases, including noncommunicable health conditions, which include many of the leading causes of death in the US. I have seen the value of integrating these efforts with those of other CDC programs, as we did with the Zika virus. Integrating expertise from across the agency is critical to our effectiveness in addressing novel and emerging diseases. CDC has proven its value in addressing conditions like hypertension, diabetes, cancer, overdose, and mental health issues, as evidenced by the progress in reducing overdose deaths this year. However, proposed budget cuts and reorganization plans will negatively impact CDC’s ability to address these conditions, worsening the nation’s health.
I love this agency. Nevertheless, I have submitted my resignation today. I am committed to protecting the public’s health, but the ongoing changes prevent me from continuing in my job as a leader of the agency. This is a heartbreaking decision that I make with a heavy heart.
To the CDC staff, you are the reason I stayed and showed up each day during difficult times. I have done my best to provide support so that you can continue your critical work. Thank you for your continued commitment to our mission and the work you do every day.
As I move on to the next phase of my career, I will continue to advocate for the values that have always driven my work—science, data, and evidence-based solutions to public health challenges. I have been privileged to contribute to the CDC’s mission in many roles, including as Chief Medical Officer, and I am deeply grateful to have had the opportunity to serve alongside you.
Deb Houry, MD, MPH.”
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases:
“It has been a great pleasure to serve in the role of Director of NCIRD. I wish I could say more in person, but wanted to make sure that you all have heard from me directly that I have submitted my resignation. I am not able to serve in this role any longer because of the ongoing weaponizing of public health. You are the best team I have ever worked with, and you continue to shine despite this dark cloud over the agency and our profession.
Please take care of yourself and your teams and make the right decisions for yourselves. I will send a longer email to our Center this evening or in the morning.
Demetre Daskalakis.”
Dr. Daniel Jernigan, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases:
Colleagues: I wanted to let you know directly that I have submitted my resignation as Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases effective tomorrow. This was a very difficult decision for me. I have had the incredible opportunity to serve the American people doing meaningful and impactful work for over 30 years.
Since 1994, I have worked at CDC with some of the most intelligent, driven, and compassionate people, working to detect, control, and prevent infectious diseases. These efforts have had significant impact mitigating illness, preventing deaths, and improving the lives of millions of people.
I believe strongly in the mission of public health and the leadership that CDC has given for almost 80 years; however, given the current context in the Department, I feel it is best for me to offer my resignation.
I am so grateful for being able to work with all of you and know that you will continue doing the highest level of science and public health.
Thanks
Dan.”
Analysis: The end of an era.
The news of these resignations set off a firestorm in public health circles. This is not normal. There had been speculation that this particular trio of leaders would resign depending on how the September meeting of Secretary Kennedy’s newly-installed CDC Advisory Commitee on Immunization Practices went. There has been mounting fear that Secretary Kennedy will attempt to link vaccines to autism in a forthcoming HHS report, and that ACIP will be expected to remove many of its recommendations, some decades old, that have protected American children from death and severe illness from preventable diseases. But news of Monarez’s ouster meant that the writing was on the wall, moving these resignations up by weeks.
Frankly, the very future of the CDC is unknown. Thousands of good scientists and other agency officials remain. But without these key leaders—non-partisan career officials widely respected both internally and beyond—the agency is genuinely at risk of losing its ability to carry out its core mission. That’s not because any three people, (regardless of how experienced or respected they may be) are irreplaceable, but, rather, for what their departures portend. Other leaders and career scientists may also soon exit or be forced out. At some point, core mission activities that keep us safe will be at risk of being unfulfilled.
When these losses will translate to decreased safety to Americans that is noticeable is an open question. But, we’re about to find out…
Striking another blow against clean energy, the Trump administration stopped work at an offshore wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island that was nearing completion. He also canceled the contracts for a wind farm 10 miles off the coast of Maryland, where construction had not started.
Trump hates wind farms, possibly because he received large campaign contributions from the oil and gas and coal industries.
But his rage towards wind farms goes back almost 20 years.
Fortune Magazine wrote that Trump has railed against wind energy since 2006, when he saw that the Scottish government was building a wind farm near his new golf club. From that time forward, he opposed wind energy.
Trump wrote in a 2013 Daily Mail article that he would fight “for as long as it takes—to hell if I have to—and spend as much as it takes to block this useless and grotesque blot on our heritage.” By the time he was first running for president in 2015, Trump had tweeted negatively about wind or “windmills” more than 130 times.
Much to Trump’s chagrin, the Scottish wind farm opened in 2018. But he’s carried that fight much more aggressively in his second term as U.S. president.
Upon his return to Scotland this July, he emphasized: “We will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States. They’re killing us”. Trump added Aug. 20 on Truth Social that he “will not approve” wind or solar projects. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” he posted.
The Trump administration has ordered companies to stop construction of a wind farm that’s being built off the coast of Rhode Island.
The acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Matthew Giacona, wrote in a letter to one of the developers, a Danish firm called Ørsted, that the government was halting work on the almost-finished project in order to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States.” The project is also being developed by Global Infrastructure Partners.
The order to stop work on the Revolution Wind project is the latest move by the Trump administration targeting the country’s renewable energy industry. President Trump, a longtime critic of the wind industry, in January issued a moratorium on new development of offshore wind projects. The Internal Revenue Service recently put out new guidance that makes it harder for companies building wind and solar projects to qualify for federal tax incentives. And the Commerce Department is investigatingwhether imports of wind turbines and their components threaten national security.
The Trump administration is working to halt development of an offshore wind project planned near Maryland, in the latest escalation of the White House’s war on theclean energy source loathed by the president.
The Interior Department plans to move to remand and vacate a permit granted to the $6 billion Maryland Offshore Wind Project, according to a court filing dated Friday. The project, which will consist of as many as 114 wind turbines about 10 nautical miles off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland, was approved by the Biden administration in 2024 and was set to begin construction next year.
This is a new twist on the voucher scam. In South Carolina, a state audit revealed that about one-third of the vouchers awarded by the state went to students who returned to their local public school or never left it.
Zack Koeske of The State reported:
More than a third of the nearly 3,000 South Carolina students awarded taxpayer-funded school vouchers last year later withdrew or were removed from the program due to eligibility concerns, S.C. Department of Education data shows.
The department suspended the accounts of 1,229 voucher recipients last school year after they were flagged during enrollment checks conducted to verify that participants had left their zoned school districts, an education department spokesman said.
To be eligible for a voucher last year, a student could not be enrolled full-time in their local district.
About 1 in 5 of the suspended accounts were reinstated after further review confirmed their eligibility. The remaining 1,005 suspended participants, all of whom had already received at least one $1,500 scholarship payment, left the program.
All of the recipients who were removed from the program due to enrollment verification had been enrolled at their zoned public schools, S.C. Department of Education spokesman Jason Raven wrote in an emailed statement.
The department recovered all unused funds that remained in the scholarship accounts of former participants, but did not attempt to recover any scholarship money those participants had already spent…
Launched last year, South Carolina’s school voucher program publicly subsidizes low- and middle-income families that send their K-12 children to private schools or public schools outside their residence area.
Families making no more than twice the federal poverty level, or $62,400 for a family of four, were eligible for $6,000 vouchers last school year.
A horrible school shooting, this time at a Catholic school in Minnesota. A deranged and hate-filled killer, carrying three weapons.
Nothing will change until the GOP abandons its love of guns. Nothing will change unless Democrats regain control of the House and Senate and pass sensible gun control laws.
There will be no safety for anyone until deadly weapons are locked away.
When the party in control of government loves guns more than innocent human life, there will be no change. The carnage continues, abetted by our elected officials. They have no shame.
Marc Elias of Democratic Docket writes about Trump’s brazen indifference to the Constitution and the law, and the mainstream media’s tendency to normalize his statements and behavior. Yesterday, he said, was a day of tyranny in the nation.
Elias, a lawyer for democratic resistance, writes:
Sitting in the Oval Office, flanked by adoring aides standing stiffly at attention, Donald Trump yesterday announced: “A lot of people are saying maybe we’d like a dictator.”
The remark, delivered with his trademark mixture of menace and showmanship, might have been dismissed as yet another provocation — except that Trump immediately reinforced the point by declaring his intention to disregard Congress and federal law.
After musing about renaming the Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” a reporter noted that such a change would require congressional approval. Trump brushed aside the objection: “We are just going to do it,”before adding, “I’m sure Congress will go along if we need that.”
Here, in a single exchange, Trump revealed both his contempt for the rule of law and his calculation that the Republican-controlled Congress will not restrain him. Sadly, on both counts, he is correct.
His administration has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to trample legal and constitutional limits without hesitation. Meanwhile, the Republican Congress has reduced itself to a doormat — incapable or unwilling to challenge him even when its own power is at stake.
What is perhaps most troubling is the muted response from the broader political and media ecosystem. Scanning today’s headlines, I saw only fleeting references to Trump’s brazen comments. No major outlet gave the story front-page treatment. Even more telling, no prominent Republican leaders were pressed to respond. The silence was deafening — and dangerous.
Instead, the political news cycle became consumed with two of Trump’s other announcements: his pledge to expand the deployment of National Guard troops and federal military forces into major U.S. cities, and his unilateral decision to fire a sitting member of the Federal Reserve Board.
On the first, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker mounted a powerful rebuttal. Holding a press event in Chicago, Pritzker effectively demonstrated that Trump’s threats against blue cities were not only politically motivated but also a violation of federalism — the principle of state sovereignty enshrined in the Constitution.
On the second, last night, Trump announced that he had fired Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board. The move was shocking. Presidents lack the legal authority to remove federal governors except under the most extreme circumstances, and Trump had been explicitly warned by the Supreme Court that firing a Fed member would be a step too far. Yet Trump pressed ahead, disregarding both law and the risk that undermining the Fed could destabilize the U.S. economy.
In a single day, Trump managed to promote dictatorship, disregard Congress, trample federalism and defy the Supreme Court. It would almost be impressive if it weren’t so horrifying. This is the cold bleak reality of American democracy just seven months into his new term.
However, don’t lose sight of hope quite yet. There were still bright spots in the opposition movement. Pritzker’s speech was a tour de force of how to stand up to Trump. It was smart, forceful and powerfully delivered.
The speech was all the better because Trump is clearly intimidated by Pritzker. Pritzker is everything Trump is not. His and his family’s wealth is the result of building great businesses and smart investments, not grifts and crypto schemes. Pritzker has used his advantages in life to benefit the people he serves, while Trump preys on his supporters — bilking them for money while cutting their government services. Most importantly, Pritzker is at ease with himself and others. He is admired as someone who is articulate, warm and kind. Trump is always performing an act that makes him the object of scorn and mockery.
One passage of Pritzker’s speech really stood out as both factually correct and important for everyone in the pro-democracy movement to absorb:
“This is about the President of the United States and his complicit lackey, Stephen Miller, searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our cities, and end elections.”
This statement is not hyperbole. It is an unvarnished description of the authoritarian project unfolding before our eyes.
Pritzker also offered important words of caution for the media.
“To the members of the press who are assembled here today, and listening across the country, I am asking for your courage to tell it like it is. This is not a time to pretend here that there are two sides to this story. This is not a time to fall back into the reflexive crouch that I so often see, where the authoritarian creep by this administration is ignored in favor of some horse race piece on who will be helped politically by the president’s actions.”
The governor correctly points out that the danger is not just Trump himself but the normalization of his behavior. Each time he disregards the law and faces little pushback, the boundaries of what is tolerated shift. Each time the press downplays his authoritarian statements as “just rhetoric,” or Republican leaders remain silent, the line between democracy and strongman rule erodes further.
It is tempting to hope that institutions — the courts, Congress, the press — will act as guardrails. Yet institutions are only as strong as the people who inhabit them. If lawmakers cower, if journalists flinch, if judges equivocate, then the institutions collapse under the weight of cowardice.
Trump’s declaration that America might “like a dictator” should have been headline news across the country. Instead, it was met with shrugs and silence — a chilling sign of how desensitized we have become.
The danger is real. A president who flouts Congress, defies the Supreme Court and threatens states with military force is not joking. He is testing the limits of our democracy, probing for weakness.
History teaches that democracies rarely fall in a single dramatic moment; they decay gradually, through a series of small surrenders. Each time we excuse, ignore or minimize authoritarian behavior, we make the next step easier. The path back from that erosion is long and uncertain.
The question now is whether enough Americans will recognize the peril in time. Will Congress find its backbone? Will the press rediscover its watchdog role? Will citizens demand accountability? The future of our republic depends on the answer.
Diane Ravitch's blog 