How far will Trump go in the Iran War?

A remorseful update on Trump’s war in Iran

Bob Sheak, Sept. 20, 2026

Introduction

Trump set the stage for the war in Iran by withdrawing from an earlier agreement between the US and other states in which Iran allowed robust inspections of suspected sites and agreed, as Iran has consistently done, not to develop a nuclear weapon.

The terms of the agreement

The Arms Control Arms Control Association identifies some of the highlights of the agreement (https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa-glance).

“The nuclear deal between Iran and the multilateral group of states known as the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) was endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 on July 20, 2015.

Iran’s compliance with the nuclear-related provisions of the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) according to certain requirements set forth in the agreement.

July 14, 2015, Finalization Day: conclusion of the negotiations on the agreement. Finalization day triggers Iran and the United States to begin domestic review processes of the JCPOA. Iran also begins providing the IAEA with information necessary for the agency to complete its investigation into past activities related to nuclear weapons development.
October 18, 2015, Adoption Day: 90 days after the passage of the UN Security Council Resolution endorsing the deal (July 20, 2015). Adoption day triggers Iran and the P5+1 to take steps (outlined below) to meet the commitments to fully implement the JCPOA.
January 16, 2016, Implementation Day: the IAEA certifies that Iran has taken the key steps to restrict its nuclear program and has put in place increased monitoring. The IAEA’s report on implementation day triggers U.S., EU, and UN sanctions relief. The duration of the nuclear commitments begins on implementation day (for example 15 year commitments expire Jan. 16, 2031.)
October 18, 2023, Transition Day: Eight years after adoption day (or the IAEA reaching its broader conclusion on Iran’s nuclear program, whichever is sooner). Transition day triggers the UN to lift missile restrictions, Iran to seek ratification of its additional protocol, the EU to terminate all remaining nuclear sanctions, United States to remove certain entities from the sanctioned list, and the United States to seek legislative termination of certain sanctions.

The U.S. Congress never formally approved the JCPOA, but they also never passed a bill to block the deal. Iranian assets frozen under a variety of previous sanctions were released. The U.S. delivered about 1.7 billion in cash to Iran, representing money that Iran had paid the U.S. before the 1979 Iranian revolution for military equipment that was never delivered.

Trump withdraws the U.S. from an Iran nuclear deal and gives him an excuse for the later attacks on that country.

Amy Sherman, Jon Greenberg, John Kruzel report on this ill-considered decision during Trump’s first presidential term, in early May 2018

(https://politifact.com/article/2018/may/08/trump-withdrew-us-iran-nuclear-deal-heres-what-you).

On May 8, 2018, Trump delivered a statement announcing, “the United States would exit a nuclear pact with Iran and re-impose sanctions on Tehran, saying the Obama-era deal failed to contain the regime’s nuclear ambitions and regional meddling.” Trump did this without any evidence that Iran was creating a nuclear weapon, the key provision of the agreement.

Sherman and his colleagues offer additional information on Trump’s decision to abandon the deal. They write,

“Trump believed the deal should have allowed international weapons inspectors to have greater access to Iranian military sites. He’s also hammered the deal for not covering Iran’s missile program and repeatedly underscored the need to stop the country from developing an intercontinental ballistic missile.

“Finally, Trump criticized the deal for failing to rein in Iran’s support of sectarian violence in places like Syria and Yemen, despite the deal’s promise to contribute to ‘regional and international peace and security.’”

“A last-ditch effort by leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom to address Trump’s concerns failed to persuade him to remain in the deal.”

Was Iran in compliance on nuclear weapons development?

Sherman and his colleagues found “that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran.

They add: “Over the 28 months the deal has been in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the foremost authority on the matter, said it found Iran committed no violations — aside from some minor infractions that were rectified.”

What is the practical impact of Trump’s decision?

The White House renewed sanctions targeted “critical sectors of Iran’s economy,” including its energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors.

“Prior to the deal, American and international sanctions shackled the regime. From 2012-15, the Iranian economy shrank by 9 percent per year, oil exports fell by more than half and more than $120 billion held in overseas banks were frozen.

“The lifting of sanctions had roughly the opposite effect. It spurred around 7 percent growth over the past two years, returned oil exports to nearly pre-sanctions levels and unfroze the country’s foreign assets.”

In response to Trump’s decision, former President Barack Obama defended the Iranian agreement and “called Trump’s announcement a ‘misguided’ decision that ‘risks eroding America’s credibility’ and warned that walking away from the deal could make conflict more likely.

“‘If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost,’ Obama wrote, ‘we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat or going to war to prevent it.’”

Trump’s war is unlawful,

Trump launched the war with huge bombing attacks without consulting Congress or considering the UN Charter’s views on what makes a war lawful. The Charter says this:

“The United Nations was established in 1945 to prevent war and promote peace, human rights, and social progress. Its Charter emphasizes that all member states must settle disputes by peaceful means and refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or when acting under Security Council authorization (UN Charter Articles 1 and 2.”

Experts agree that, from the onset, the US war on Iran constituted a war crime”

JAMEY KEATEN considers that UN-backed experts cite possible US war crimes in Iranian strikes, AP, Sept 17, 2026 (https://apnews.com/article/un-human-rights-us-iran) …. Keaten is the chief Associated Press reporter in Geneva, focusing on Switzerland, diplomacy and U.N. institutions.

Here’s some of what Keaton reports.

“Experts commissioned by the U.N.’s top human rights body say they have found ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the United States committed war crimes in two strikes in Iran, including on a school in the southern city of Minab.

“They also accuse Iran’s theocratic government of carrying out crimes against humanity against its own people, in a report published Thursday.

“The report, while not binding, adds to international evidence gathered about crimes in the war in Iran, and could eventually be used in efforts to reach justice in international courts.”

Keaton continues. “The fact-finding mission on Iran, chaired by jurist Sara Hossain of Bangladesh, is made up of independent experts and was created in 2022 by the Human Rights Council, the U.N.’s top human rights body, which is based in Geneva.

“The experts were expected to present their findings on Monday to the council, which is made up of 47 U.N.- member countries.”

In anticipation of the report, the White House’s spokesperson Anna Kelly rejected the report in advance saying the human rights body has “accomplished nothing for human rights while spouting unserious nonsense for decades.”

The UN experts report that the US launched “indiscriminate” attacks on Iran that constitute war crimes on Feb. 28 with special attention to “a pair of U.S. airstrikes that killed at least 178 civilians, including women and children.”

Keaton points out, “At the start of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran in February, at least one U.S. missile hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab, according to an Associated Press investigation.” Iranian state media have said 168 people were killed in the strike, most of them children.

The UN experts “found reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects,” a U.N. statement about the team’s findings said about the Feb. 28 attacks by the U.S. and Israel.

Bottom of Form

“The U.N.-backed team based its allegations on two strikes — one involving Tomahawk missiles that hit the ‘clearly identifiable’ school, and another in which Precision Strike Missiles dispersed tungsten pellets over a ‘clearly identifiable sports complex and residential area’ in the southern city of Lamerd, also on Feb. 28.”

The UN experts also cite “crimes against humanity’” by Iran’s government. Keaton continues. “The team found that killings by state security forces in Iran have occurred on a ‘staggering scale,’ and civilians faced ‘gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity committed by their own government.’”

Both the US and Iran should provide reparations, they say

The experts said the United States and Iran should halt all rights violations and crimes and provide “full reparations to victims.”

The U.S. House has tried to limit Trump’s power to attack Iran

Caitlin Yilek reports for CBS News, Sept. 16, 2026, on how the U.S. House has voted three times to limit Trump’s power to strike Iran (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-approves-limiting trump-on-iron-for-third time). Here’s some of what she writes.

“For the third time, the House voted Tuesday [Sept. 15] to block President Trump from taking further military action against Iran, with seven Republicans breaking with the president.

“The vote ended in a 220 to 204 tally, marking a symbolic rebuke of the president over the largely unpopular war.

“Tuesday’s resolution drew more GOP support than the previous two efforts to limit Mr. Trump’s war powers in June and July.

Yilek continues. “Three new Republicans voted yes: Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn of Iowa. The four who supported the prior resolutions were Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

“Nunn, who is in a competitive reelection bid, said in a post after the vote that he will ‘not support another open-ended war.’”

“Miller-Meeks, another vulnerable Republican, added Wednesday, ‘The President needs to present a plan to Congress and the American people for how this end so we can focus on bringing our soldiers home and lowering prices.’”

“A war powers resolution that cleared the House in July has yet to see any movement in the Senate. Both chambers adopted another resolution in June, though the White House has argued against its validity.

“The resolution, introduced by Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”

Yilek points out that after six months of the war, “the Trump administration has yet to lay out an exit strategy as it seeks tens of billions in additional funding for the conflict that Mr. Trump initially predicted would last four to five weeks. The Pentagon has said Operation Epic Fury — the military’s term for the initial strikes against Iran — ended in May, but the U.S. and Iran have continued to exchange fire for months, and a ceasefire intended to bring the war to an end fell apart in July. Oil shipments from the region are still constrained, keeping global energy prices high.”

Meanwhile, Yilek writes, “Republicans are trying to provide up to $73 billion in new funding for the war through the party-line reconciliation process. The House adopted a budget blueprint in July to initiate the process, but it stalled in the Senate over the inclusion of funding for Mr. Trump’s voting regulations bill known as the SAVE America Act.”

The war is costly. “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an analysis Tuesday that estimated the war with Iran could cost approximately $2 billion to $3 billion per month for as long as it continues. Between Feb. 28 and Aug. 1, the war is estimated to have directly cost the U.S. about $38 billion.” Other estimates indicate the cost to be over $44 billion by September. Trump started this war with no idea of how long it would last, how much it would cost, and the inflationary effects on American consumers.

In short, Trump falsely believed it would be an easy war to win, and that Iranian citizens would rise and transform their oppressive government. The number of Iranian casualties did not matter to him. He expected there would be few if any American casualties. He gave little thought to the costs of the war or its domestic economic effects.

The relevance of the Strait of Hormuz was absent in his war impulses.

The cost of the war

Dave Jamieson reports on the financial cost of the war for MSN, Sept 17, 2026

(https://www.msn.com/news/other/iran-war-has-cost-pentagon-436-billion-politics) ….

Jamieson writes, “President Donald Trump’s war in Iran has cost the Pentagon at least $43.6 billion so far, according to a Defense Department assessment obtained by Politico.

“That estimate comes in several billion dollars higher than a different one released this week by the Congressional Budget Office, which pegged the tab at $38 billion.

The CBO estimates that price of the war going forward to be anywhere from $2 to $3 billion a month, depending on whether fighting flares up or dies down.

The CBO estimates “only cover direct military costs from fighting. They do not include indirect costs that U.S. families bear in the form of higher fuel prices. Researchers at Brown University estimate those to be roughly $110 billion and counting.” Gas prices have soared, along with prices for a host of essentials.

Ecocide in Iran

Ashley Gate reports on the environmental effects of the war for The Intercept, Aug 31, 2026 (https://2026/08/31/iran-war-environmental-toxic-chemical-exposure).

Gate’s main point: “The U.S.–Israeli war has caused massive environmental devastation, adding to the long history of American wars with toxic legacies.”

Trump started the war, claiming falsely that it would take less than two weeks to end it on US terms and that it would bring “PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!” But after more than six months and two failed ceasefires later, the floundering conflict sputters along. And you may have noticed that world peace has yet to be announced.

Gates continues. “Trump’s other stated war aims, like Iran’s unconditional surrender and seizing its oil infrastructure, have also fallen by the wayside. In the end, the major accomplishments of Trump’s war seem to be limited to death and destruction: hundreds of U.S. casualties that the Pentagon has sought to downplay and cover-up, and thousands of Iranian deaths that the Pentagon is loath to mention or investigate, including a family of eight — five of them children, one a 20-day-old infant.

“But the almost 40,000 Iranians killed or wounded in the war may only scratch the surface of the true toll.”

Gates writes, “The rough outlines of the ecological devastation are only just coming to light. And if history is any guide, the environmental fallout of the war may reach far into the future, affecting untold numbers of Iranians who survived the conflict and many others in generations to come.

The Toxic Inheritance of America’s Wars

Gates continues. “Esmaeil Baqaei, the spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, recently warned of the increasing environmental damage caused by the U.S. war, drawing attention to oil contamination in the Persian Gulf that has begun washing up on Iranian shores.

“This incident is only one visible example of the extensive pollution — both overt and concealed — that has degraded the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman,” he wrote on X. “Who bears responsibility for compensating these damages? Is it the nations that consume the inexpensive energy exported from our region, the shipping insurers, or the aggressors and their partners who have transformed the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman into a theater for military operations and the testing of highly destructive weaponry?”

“Alongside death and destruction that has killed or wounded tens of thousands of Iranians, the U.S.–Israeli war has caused massive environmental devastation. By March, attacks had already resulted in more than 300 incidents of potential environmental harm, documented across 12 countries in the region, according to a report by the Conflict and Environment Observatory. These toxic exposures threaten not only today’s war victims, but also future generations who will grapple with the knock-on effects.”

Additional facts.

“According to research by the Climate and Community Institute, U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran in the first 14 days of the war emitted roughly 5 million metric cubic tons of greenhouse gases. Put another way: In two weeks, coalition strikes produced roughly the same amount of carbon emissions as the country of Iceland does over the course of a year. And as the war dragged on, missile facilities, weapons depots, oil infrastructure, nuclear facilities, dual-use and civilian infrastructure including power stations and desalination plants were also increasingly struck.

The catastrophic effects to come

“The environmental threats these targets pose is enormous. Damaged desalination plants jeopardize the civilian water supply and flood nearby land and marine environments with harmful chemicals like sulfuric acid. Bombed infrastructure fills urban streets with asbestos-contaminated rubble and dust, heightening the risk of respiratory illness and cancer among exposed populations. Damaged weapons facilities pollute surrounding areas with explosives, highly toxic liquid propellants, and heavy metals. And the targeting of nuclear facilities risks radiation exposure or worse, an uncontrolled nuclear disaster, like a meltdown.

“Fossil fuel infrastructure has also remained a key military objective for all belligerents. Israeli strikes on more than two dozen Iranian oil depots in early March engulfed the capital city of Tehran in a cloud of toxic smoke that rained black carbon and sulfuric acid on the city’s 9 million residents. Attacks on oil tankers and other commercial vessels have leached oil and spilled fuel into myriad waterways from the Egyptian port of Damietta, where Iran struck two liquefied natural gas vessels, to the coast of Sri Lanka, where the U.S. sank an Iranian frigate. And such environmental damage is likely to increase as the conflict continues to sporadically flare up.”

US troops have been victims

“And for decades, U.S. troops have paid for it with exposures to toxic substances, including defoliants like Agent Orange, an herbicide the U.S. sprayed across Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s; smoke from oil depot fires that dotted the landscape in and around Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War; and the military base burn pits of the post-9/11 forever wars. The PACT Act of 2022 extended healthcare access to millions of veterans who served from the last half of the 20th century to today and now suffer from a wide range of conditions related to such wartime exposures, including cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and reproductive issues likely caused or exacerbated by their military service.”

Higher prices in US from the War drives Trump’s popularity down

Dave Jamieson reports on this for MSN on Sept 10, 2026

(https://msn.com/en-us/news/other/added-fuel-coss-of-trumps-war-in-iran-estimates-100-billion-for-us-families/ar-AA2bOXkw).

President Donald Trump’s war of choice in Iran has cost U.S. consumers at least $100 billion in added fuel expenses since Feb. 28, according to Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab.

“Researchers estimate that the war has created an additional burden of $55 billion due to higher gasoline prices and $45 billion due to higher diesel prices as of Labor Day. They arrive at that figure by setting actual prices this year against estimates of what prices would have been without the war-induced surge in oil prices, then multiplying it by expected fuel usage.

“The tab translates to an average hit of $750 per household, though families with multiple cars and long commutes would bear more.

“‘Energy price shocks function as an economy-wide, unacknowledged tax on American households, with costs comparable to large federal programs and policies,’ the group said in a statement Tuesday.

“Oil prices have shot up since the U.S. and Israel launched their war and Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping way that carries about a quarter of the world’s oil supply. Prices have dropped at times only to bounce back up, just as they did on Tuesday, nearing $100 per barrel again due to the standoff in the strait.

“The price of gasoline was below $3 per gallon on average before the war and now hovers at $4.15 as of Tuesday, according to AAA. The higher prices at the pump have helped drive public support for the war to just 31% and Trump’s approval rating to a mere 33%, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey.

“Though less visible than the price of gasoline, the higher cost of diesel fuel has also squeezed Americans’ wallets since the war began. Diesel fuel is used in large trucks, farm machinery and power generation, so households ‘bear these increases through higher prices from their grocery stores, utility bills, and across the economy,’ the Brown researchers noted.

US troops killed and wounded in the region

“On top of the financial cost, the war has led to 18 service member deaths and roughly 800 wounded. Trump recently downplayed those losses by comparing them to the much larger toll of the Vietnam War.

“I’ll tell you what, a lot of people don’t call it a war,” Trump said of the fighting in Iran.“I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us. It’s not a big thing. We did Venezuela, and we did this. In Venezuela, we lost nobody, and this we lost 18 people. In Vietnam, you lost a hundred thousand people, and in other conflicts you lost tens of thousands of people.”

“It certainly doesn’t feel like small potatoes, Mr. President,” replied ABC News’ Rachel Scott. “Eighteen people have died in this.”

Trump’s popularity has plummeted

This in part reflects Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resultant rise in prices for gasoline and many other items vital to the life of the majority of Americans. Prices began to rise before the War because of Trump’s imposition of tariffs on countries. His popularity has suffered. Fernando Cervantes Jr. presents the results of a recent poll on Trump (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/09/08/trump-approval-rating-poll/916625007). Here’s some of what he reports.

“President Donald Trump’s approval rating fell to a new low of 32% in a Focaldata/Financial Times poll released over Labor Day weekend, reflecting declines among both the general public and Republicans as midterm elections approach.”

“The president’s continued struggles in the polls come ahead of a vital midterm season as his party seeks to hold slim majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

Given all the bad news, would a desperate Trump authorize the use of nuclear weapons on Iran?

The Peril of Trump’s Final Act: Would He Use a Tactical Nuclear Weapon in Iran?

Robert L. Borosage considers this question in The Nation, Sept 18, 2026

(https://www.thenation.com/article/world/trump-iran-war-tactical-nuclear-weapon).

He is a leading progressive writer and activist.

Here’s some of his reply.

“Donald Trump is trapped: His war of choice against Iran is lost, an abject strategic catastrophe. Now Trump has to choose sustain another forever war until Iran breaks, a strategy his own generals oppose, or produce a grand finale to get out without admitting defeat. And there is the rub.

“Reality has shattered Trump’s conceits. Instead of a few days, the war has lasted six months and counting. Instead of regime change and popular uprising, the Iranian regime stands with new hardened leadership. Instead of another display of US military prowess, the US military has been driven out of major bases across the region, stockpiles of vital offensive and defensive missiles have been depleted, and

the US Navy has been overstretched and exhausted.

“And Iran keeps ratcheting up the pressure. It controls the Strait of Hormuz, and its Houthi allies have just seized control of the alternative route through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and blown-up Saudi Arabia’s key east-west pipeline. Crude oil is now over $110 per barrel and rising; the price of diesel—the fuel of commerce—is at record levels. The cost of fertilizer, fuel, and virtually anything that requires transport is going up, with the global economy at risk.

Borosage continues. “In response, Trump grows ever more delusional. ‘The failing Nation of Iran,’ he claims, ‘wants to make a deal, quickly and badly.’ He suggests that Iran is waiting until after our midterm elections to sue for peace, at which point the price of gasoline will ‘drop like a rock.’ Then he muses that we might just stay in Iran:

‘We’ll ultimately get out, unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela.’ He turned to Oman as a mediator on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and then threatened that if it ‘gets in the way, we’ll bomb the shit out of them.’

“He dismisses the war as ‘small potatoes,’ claims full control of the Strait, suggests that the ‘Countries of the World…should and will reimburse the United States of America when this SCAM Confligration [sic] is over,’ and jokes that he might rename the Strait ‘Trump Strait,’ saying, ‘I should get something out of it.’

Trump has no good options

“The real straits of Trump are dire: He is trapped in a war that has already been lost, a reality that he will never allow himself to admit. Under Republican control, the House has voted repeatedly to end the war. With Democrats likely to take the majority in the midterms, Trump faces the prospect minimally of investigative hearings that will bare the true extent of the losses, costs, and internal military opposition to his folly. He has to find a way to declare victory and get out, and soon.

“Many experts report that the United States and Israel are gearing up to launch another full-scale operation, probably just after the US midterms. The Trump administration has just approved a $2.8 billion Israeli arms package that includes 40,000 bombs, half of which are 2,000-pound bombs. Even so, skeptics question how much a new bombing wave could achieve, given the depletion of US weapons stocks, naval power, and base support, without the use of nuclear weapons.”

Hegseth’s Pentagon has been moving to integrate tactical nuclear weapons into conventional war strategy. The aim, as Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby put it in the chilling language of the megadeath intellectuals, is to provide ‘credible, rational nuclear options that a President of the United States adopting the simple principle of being a normal human being with common sense would actually implement.’”

Trump’s recklessness and mental instability

“The United States, the only country ever to drop a nuclear weapon, has repeatedly refused to adopt a “no first use” policy. The president has sole authority to order the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. Neither Congress nor the public would be given prior notice. Would Trump use a tactical nuclear weapon on relatively isolated Pickaxe Mountain in Iran as his exit line?

“According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, using a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear nation is a violation of international customary law. But Trump, as his noxious deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, infamously asserted, dismisses international law and treaties as ‘international niceties,’ arguing that ‘the real world…is governed by strength, by force…by power.’ Trump boasts that the only limit on his international power is’one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’”

Borosage continues. “Dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran would not only be criminal; it would be incredibly dumb. Iran would respond by unleashing an assault on oil and desalination and energy platforms across the Emirates and an unprecedented assault on Israel.

“It would also set off a race for nuclear weapons, as countries across the globe would understand that the reason Iran was targeted and not North Korea is that the latter has nuclear weapons and the former does not.”

“Use of a tactical nuclear weapon would set a precedent for Russia or China to invoke if they chose to use or threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine or Taiwan or other adversaries. It would put the nuclear arms race, already gaining dangerous momentum, into hyperdrive. And it would indelibly brand the US as a dangerous, pariah nation, feared but despised across the globe.

“For these and other reasons, it is hard to imagine any president making that decision. But Trump, trapped, desperate, angry, delusional, intent on punishing his enemies and displaying his prowess, could well be tempted. And the anticipated Democratic election victories this fall will corner him—and that will make him even more dangerous, as we saw with the sacking of the Capitol after his 2020 loss in the presidential race.”

Borosage concludes. “The last weeks of reduced military activity and apparent stalemate have been misleading. The economic costs of the war—now with oil transport through both Hormuz and the Red Sea constricted—are escalating. The pressure on Trump to escalate, to unleash another round of bombing in order to declare victory and get out, is rising. Without a concerted movement toward a settlement, the unimaginable is becoming more conceivable.

Concluding thoughts

Trump has shown time and again how reckless, stupid, and narcissistic he is. A growing majority of Americans have also come to such conclusions. At the same time, he still had the power of the presidency. He is currently trying to rig elections in favor of Republicans to avoid any challenge to himself by Democrats. He spends much time thinking about how to put his name on monuments and ballrooms and other public places. He is still committed to waging the Iran War and adhering to his belief that the US military will ultimately open the Strait of Hormuz and end the war in favor of the US. Currently, it all sounds like bluster. But if there is no agreement with Iran to end the war, there is a concern that he could order the use of nuclear weapons in the Iran War. We can only hope that in such an eventuality, military officers will disobey.

Increase or reduce military spending?

Bob Sheak, September 12, 2026

Trump wants to spend unprecedented sums of money on the military. According to a Whitehouse report, President Trump is committed to rebuilding our military to secure peace through strength’ but, as documented later in this post, much of this spending is wasteful or is going to ineffective weapon systems (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/rebuilding-our-military-fact-sheet.pd).

The proposed 2027 military budget

Trump’s FY 2027 Budget proposes “$1.15 trillion in discretionary (28% increase) and $350 billion in mandatory bringing total resources for defense to $1.5 trillion (including a 44% increase for the Department of War (DOW).” This includes an order of 41 ships, “the largest demand signal to the maritime industrial base since the administration o Franklin D. Roosevelt. It includes billions for building the Golden Dome, a controversial and probably ineffective system on the West Coast to intercept incoming nuclear weapons from enemies. The budget proposals also calls for the elimination of millions of dollars in “egregious spending related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and other ‘woke’ programs that are part of “the more than $1.6 billion in reductions that the Administration has already identified.”

Spending on the Iran War

Meanwhile, Trump’s government is spending a huge amount of money in the Iran war. Roman Kukhalashvili reports that as of September 10, 2026, the government had spent 42,573,971,775 on the Iran War, with the spending rapidly increasing (https://militaryspend.org/us-iran-war).

US national debt climbs above $40 trillion

This unprecedented post-WWII spending is increasing the national debt.

Steve Benen, reporting for MSN, Aug 20, 2026, is among those who consider this issue (https://finance-yahoo.comeconomy/policy/articles/u-national-debt-reaches-40-130421237.html).

Benen points out that “eight years ago, Donald Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show and reflected on the nation’s fiscal health. ‘We have $21 trillion in debt … a number that is unthinkable,” the president said in July 2018.

But that will go down very quickly.’”

But in early August of 2026, “Americans learned that this year’s budget deficit had reached nearly $1.8 trillion, which is already higher than all last year’s deficit, and that’s with two months still remaining in the fiscal year. This week, the public received some related news: The United States’ national debt, which Trump considered “unthinkable” when it reached $21 trillion, has now crossed the $40 trillion threshold.”

Trump’s misleading promise

Benen writes, “we’re racking up debt faster than earlier independent analyses, thanks almost entirely to the cost of GOP tax breaks, the war in Iran and the White House’s failed tariffs agenda. The article added, “The faster accumulation of debt comes at a perilous moment. An array of concerns, including inflation, the war in Iran and rising debt levels around the world, are driving investors to dump government bonds.”

Benen continues. “Trump promised voters a very different outcome: As a candidate in 2016, the Republican told voters he had unique expertise in budgetary issues, which would enable him to eliminate the deficit and start paying off the debt. Trump delivered the opposite results, adding nearly $7.8 trillion to the national debt in just one term. As a candidate in 2024, he repeated his earlier promises, before again delivering the opposite results: Trump has added nearly $4 trillion in debt since returning to the White House a year and a half ago.

“Trump and congressional Republicans are to blame: There’s no great mystery here. The debt is growing quickly as a direct result of GOP policies. Military spending is one major part of the rising debt, reducing it is one major part of a solution.

Cutting military spending

In their new book, The Trillion-Dollar War Machine, William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman analyze how wasteful and inefficient the military budget is and how to make it less so.

Where the spending goes

“More than half of the Pentagon budget goes to private firms, not military personnel.” (p. 3)

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars “cost US taxpayers a staggering $8 trillion, according to estimates by the Cost of War project at Brown University. Much of that spending went directly to Pentagon contractors. The ‘Big Five’ contractors alone – Lockheed Martin, Raytheon (now RTX), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman – split an astonishing $2.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts in the two decades after the 9/11 attacks as they benefited from soaring military budgets”

(p. 3)

They lobby big time – “…in 2024 alone, Pentagon contractors spent more than $148 billion on lobbying and had more the 945 lobbyists work on their behalf, nearly two-thirds of whom have gone through the ‘revolving door,’ which prior experience in the legislative or executive branch. Taken together, today’s war machine fields almost two lobbyists – and more than $275,000 in lobbying spending – for every individual member of Congress. Given that nearly all representatives and senators have a salary below $200,000 per year” (p. 4)

The arms makers

CEOs make tens of millions. Hartung and Freeman write: “Millions of dollars of the new money flowing to the arms makers will be diverted to pay for exorbitant executive salaries. The top five contractors pay their CEOs an average of more than $20 million per year. Adding in other key executive at these firms brings the total to above $287 million per year, enough to create more than 2,800 jobs in the green energy sector or hire more than 6,100 new soldiers” (p. 70)

Trump’s two big projects in his second term, though there are other ineffective weapon systems in the works

Hartung and Freeman make important points.

The F-47 combat aircraft

“…the next generation combat aircraft known as the F-47, which will involve a down payment of at least $20 billion to develop and buy the initial round of planes, with untold billions beyond that depending on how many the Pentagon chooses to build and how many problems arise in building the aircraft. The F-47 award is a win for a big traditional firm, Boeing….” (p. 7). It has a “dismal record of cost overruns and performance problems.”

The Golden Dome project – “a frequent talking point of President Trump – could develop into one of the most wasteful programs in Pentagon history, soaking up enormous amounts of taxpayer money without adding much to the defense of the United States….if it gets up and running, it could consume hundreds of billions of dollars in the decades to come pursuing the impossible dream of an impenetrable shield against everything from hypersonic weapons and next-generation drones to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).” (p. 7)

Other problematic weapons

ICBMs would not make the US safer

Hartung and Freeman write, “with a ‘dyad’: a nuclear force make up of nuclear-armed bombers and ballistic missile-firing submarines but no ICBMs” (43)

“Former Secretary of Defense William Perry….coauthored a book with Tom Collins of the Ploughshares Fund that recommends phasing out ICBMs rather than building new ones. Their rational is that doing so would eliminate the need to launch nuclear weapons upon warning of an attack, which undergirds a ‘use ‘em or lose ‘em’ mentality that increases the risk of an accidental conflict. At they further note, ICBMs are not needed for defense. ‘The U.S. nuclear submarine force is sufficient for assured deterrence and will be for the foreseeable future” (p. 60)

The F-35 fighter

“Today…the F-35 is doing none of its required missions well. It’s too fast to provide effective support for troops on the ground, too light to carry large numbers of bombs, inferior to prior-generation planes in aerial dogfights, and so difficult to maintain that is spends almost half its time in the hangar being repaired” (p. 63)

The Boeing KC-46 refueling tanker

“…a poster child for the war machine’s shoddy performance and massive cost overruns is the Boeing KC-46 refueling tanker. At a cost of $6.9 billion more than original estimates, the KC-46 program is already seven years behind schedule yet still plagued by technical problems” p. 74) ….

Boeing V-22 Osprey

“Another example of poor production and faulty maintenance is the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, an aircraft that is supposed to be able to both hover like a helicopter and fly like a plane” – “As of December 2023, about four hundred of the aircraft were in use by the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Yet the Osprey has proven to be as dangerous to its crew members as any adversary, perhaps even more dangerous. The aircraft has been involved in ten fatal crashes that have killed a shocking sixty-four people” (76)

Ways to rein in the influence of the war machine

Hartung and Freeman offer this “preliminary” list.

“…campaign-finance reform; tighter restrictions on the revolving door between government and the arms industry; greater transparency about the activities of the arms lobby, including full transparency of its contribution to think tanks and academia; candid disclosures whenever the US military or Pentagon contractors are involved in the production of movies, TV shows, video games, or any other form of entertainment; increased investment in other areas of urgent national need as alternatives to economic dependency on the Pentagon; and, most importantly, a new vision of America’s role in the world that favors dialogue and diplomacy over war and preparations for war” (p. 262)

Concluding thoughts It’s not often that we are fortunate enough to have an in-depth, expert analysis of the military-industrial complex or war machine. But this is what Hartung and Freeman give us in their book. It is an incisive rebuttal to those who support Trump’s huge military budget or believe that only war and war preparedness keep us free from foreign domination. But, to the contrary, they provide the evidence and rationale for something very different, a reenergized peace movement, a focus on diplomacy, and a smaller more efficient milita

The effects of Trump’s warped policies

Bob Sheak, August 29, 2026

Trump is among the beneficiaries of the current troubled economy, as his stock portfolio goes up by millions. Some American corporations and CEO’s are making windfall profits.

At the same time, Americans generally are experiencing an affordability crisis. The Iran War contributes to the high prices, especially gas prices. All the while, the national debt grows to unprecedented and unsustainable levels.

Amid this economic turmoil, Trump is unable to make headway on opening the Strait of Hormuz and the high prices that stem from it. At the same time, he is spending time and money (some of it government money) on his vanity projects (e.g., the ballroom). He has also, stunningly, started a trade war with Canada that will contribute to high prices and scarcities.

Trump’s windfall

Trump’s stock portfolio increased by $15.5 million and Democratic committee claims rise is buttressed by the effects of the Iran war

Nicole Dauphinee provides some documentation, Yahoo, Aug 24, 2026

(https://wwwyahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trumps-stock-portfolio-increased-15-151715412.html).

A U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee report from the Democratic minority was released Monday alleging that President Donald Trump profited from “sky-high oil and gas profits and stock prices” tied to the Iran War.

“The report includes Trump’s annual financial disclosure from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, which shows that his stock value from investments in oil and gas companies increased by $15.5 million at the end of 2025. The disclosure shows his portfolio increased from $45.6 million to $61.1 million.”

Dauphinee continues. “President Trump continues to get richer from an illegal war that he started and refuses to resolve, while Americans pay the price for his actions,” U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan, Ranking Member of the Democratic Minority Committee, said. ‘On the campaign trail, Trump promised giveaways for Big Oil and relief for working families, but he can’t deliver both. Since launching his war with Iran, Trump has made clear that he puts his own financial interests—and those of his biggest bankrollers—ahead of Americans who are burdened with higher costs for gas and everyday essentials under this administration.’”

“The minority report cites an analysis by Fortune magazine,” Dauphinee points out, “linking the Iran War, U.S. oil profits, and stocks ‘soaring.’ It alleges that ‘during the campaign, President Trump promised to deliver for Big Oil if they gave him $1 billion in donations.’”

Dauphinee adds, “While the report does not corroborate this claim, congressional inquiry documents and multiple mainstream media outlets report that Donald Trump solicited a $1 billion fundraising target from oil and gas executives at a Mar-a-Lago “energy round table” on April 11, 2024.”

The committee also reported that American families have spent an extra $71.5 billion on gas since the start of the Iran war, averaging $604 in additional costs per family.

Read the full report from the Joint Economic Committee Minority here.

Staggering cost of Trump’s tacky vanity projects revealed

Leigh Kimmins reports on this (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/staggering-cost-of-trumps-tacky-vanity-projects-revealed).

“The total cost of the president’s various vanity projects across the capital, combining private donations and public funds,” she continues, “is on track to exceed $1 billion, according to Financial Times estimates. The new East Wing ballroom and its security costs alone account for nearly $800 million of that figure.

“A 250-foot Triumphal Arch is planned for the stretch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. A National Garden of American Heroes would feature 250 statues of historical figures ranging from Thomas Jefferson to game show host Alex Trebek. The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has been recoated ‘American flag blue.’ The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is to be painted white to match the White House next door. And a public golf course is being converted into a championship-level complex for the president’s preferred pastime.”

“Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary and the man responsible for all paperwork that reaches Trump’s desk, told the Financial Times that Trump is ‘intensely involved’ in the plans. Scharf, who was named chair of the National Capital Planning Commission—the federal design and construction review panel that has approved the East Wing project and assessed the Triumphal Arch—said he has had ‘long conversations’ with Trump on flights and on the road discussing ‘the virtues of Corinthian versus Ionic columns.’”

“The ballroom, Scharf said, is something Trump considers part of his ‘legacy’ to the country.”

Big Oil Is Obtaining Windfall Profits as Trump’s War on Iran Drives Up Prices

Derek Seidman writes on his issue for Truthout, Aug 25, 2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/big-oil-is-seeing-windfall-profits-as-trumps-war-on-iran-drives-up-prices). Seidman is a regular contributor for Truthout. Here are excerpts from the article.

“While the U.S. war on Iran is broadly unpopular in the U.S, including among a growing number of Donald Trump voters, at least one of the president’s core constituencies is happy: Big Oil.

“The war’s straining of the global oil supply chain has delivered windfall profits to major fossil fuel corporations. The top two U.S. oil companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron, recently disclosed an astounding $26.5 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2026. Top independent U.S. oil refiners like Marathon, Valero, and Phillips 66 are seeing similar explosions in profits. Globally, a Guardian study found that eight of the world’s top oil companies took in more than $90 billion, or “more than $700,000 of profit every minute over the spring quarter.”

“The word “oil company” might evoke generic imagery of rigs and refineries. But behind these entities are executives, board members, and top investors who are primary beneficiaries of Big Oil’s war profiteering and who hold commanding power within a fossil fuel power structure that stretches well beyond oil company boardrooms and into Wall Street and the corporate establishment more widely.”

Seidman continues.

Big Oil’s War Profits

“ExxonMobil and Chevron are the two largest U.S. oil corporations, together worth around $1 trillion. They are massive integrated fossil fuel companies whose operations span the entire chain of oil and gas production, and who have a presence across virtually the entire world.

“In July, the two oil juggernauts together reported $26.5 billion in net income during the second quarter of 2026 — April through June of this year — as “they cashed in on surging crude and petrol prices caused by Donald Trump’s Iran war,” wrote the Financial Times.

“Comparisons with last year provide a metric for measuring these enormous returns. In 2025, ExxonMobil reported second-quarter total earnings of $7.08 billion. In 2026, by comparison, that number leapt to $14.53 billion — more than a 105 percent increase, and “its best quarterly profit since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine caused a surge in oil prices,” according to the Financial Times.

“In 2025, Chevron reported second-quarter earnings of $2.49 billion. In 2026, that number skyrocketed nearly four times — 384.7 percent — to $12.07 billion, which is Chevron’s largest quarterly haul ever.

Seidman continues. “These numbers mean one thing: huge profits funneled to a tiny stratum at the expense of the many who face rising energy prices and the destruction of war. As the nonprofit Oil Change International put it, “there is a massive transfer of wealth occurring as billions around the world struggle with high energy prices while an elite few reap the windfall.”

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has majorly disrupted global oil and gas supply chains through attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure throughout the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the passthrough for one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.

Corporate giants with global operations like ExxonMobil and Chevron are in a position to continue supplying higher-priced oil. “Both companies have boosted production to near-record levels and are running refineries close to maximum capacity to supply petrol, diesel and other products to customers affected by the Middle East conflict,” said the Financial Times.

Trump’s policies add to the national debt, despite an earlier promise not to do so

Steve Benen writes that Trump’s policies have contributed to the increase in the national debt, Aug 20, 2026 (https://finance-yahoo.comeconomy/policy/articles/u-national-debt-reaches-40-130421237.html).

“Around this time eight years ago, Donald Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show and reflected on the nation’s fiscal health. “We have $21 trillion in debt … a number that is unthinkable,” the president said in July 2018. “But that will go down very quickly.”

He was wrong – and misled the public.

Benen continues.

“Last week, Americans learned that this year’s budget deficit had reached nearly $1.8 trillion, which is already higher than all of last year’s deficit, and that’s with two months still remaining in the fiscal year. This week, the public received some related news: The United States’ national debt, which Trump considered ‘unthinkable’ when it reached $21 trillion, has now crossed the $40 trillion threshold.”

“The problem is getting worse faster than anyone expected: Everyone knew this was likely to happen eventually, but as The Washington Post reported this week, we’re racking up debt faster than earlier independent analyses, thanks almost entirely to the cost of GOP tax breaks, the war in Iran and the White House’s failed tariffs agenda. The article added, ‘The faster accumulation of debt comes at a perilous moment. An array of concerns, including inflation, the war in Iran and rising debt levels around the world, are driving investors to dump government bonds.”

Trump promised voters a very different outcome: As a candidate in 2016, the Republican told voters he had unique expertise in budgetary issues, which would enable him to eliminate the deficit and start paying off the debt. Trump delivered the opposite results, adding nearly $7.8 trillion to the national debt in just one term, and most of that total was racked up before the Covid-19 crisis. As a candidate in 2024, he repeated his earlier promises, before again delivering the opposite results: Trump has added nearly $4 trillion in debt since returning to the White House a year and a half ago.”

Republican administrations add to the debt

Dean Baker considers this topic (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/08/24/the-40-trillion-debt-oh-my). Here’s some of what he writes.

“I have never been a deficit hawk, and I’m not about to change my religious affiliation now. But whatever we think of debt and deficits, there is one point that should be very clear: it has been run up almost entirely due to Republican tax cuts and their inept management of the economy.

“Every Democratic president of the last half century has left with a deficit that was lower, measured as a share of GDP, than the one they came in with, except Obama, who left it unchanged. By contrast, every Republican president has left with a considerably higher deficit than what they inherited.”

The negative domestic effects of the Iran War

Suddep Reddy considers these effects (https://google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMcgzQhWBlhJJRMPjgVKgKxCxbrnsfg).

“As his war with Iran hits its six-month mark, the conflict is upending his

presidency. Rising gas prices are squeezing consumers and fueling anxiety across party lines. Inflation is rattling bond markets and raising borrowing costs. Supply chain snarls and military equipment shortages risk creating further instability around the world.

“The president who repeatedly pledged to avoid his predecessors’ missteps overseas is now seeing his own agenda derailed by an unpopular war.”

Trump’s approval ratings move down

Emily R. Condon reports that the Iran war is unpopular as Trump battles low approval ratings (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/iran-are-is-unpopular-as-trump-battles-low-approval-ratings-recent-polls/ar-AA2aUrgM).

She considers five polls released in August that indicate that “Americans express pessimism about the Iran war and continued economic worries, according to a USA TODAY review of five polls released in August.”

Trump’s low approval ratings

“The August polls released by Marquette Law School (Aug. 5 and 6), Economist/YouGov (Aug. 11), Reuters/Ipsos (Aug. 17 and Aug. 24) and Emerson College (Aug. 20) were conducted across the country with different groups of likely voters or American adults, but they all told a similar story.”

“The president’s approval rating remained a net negative and sat in the low to high 30-percentage-point range in most polling. The Marquette Law School poll saw a slight jump from June’s 38% approval rating to an August-reported 40% of Americans approving of Trump.

“Economist/YouGov and Reuters/Ipsos reported 33% approval ratings, which fell two or three points from more recent polls. Emerson’s poll reported a slightly higher rate, with 39.5% of Americans approving of Trump while 55.8% disapproved.”

Condon continues.

The Iran war is unpopular among Americans

“Support for U.S. military action against Iran is at a new low, with support falling among Republicans as well, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

“The poll released on Aug. 24 reported that only 31% of Americans approve of the operation, which is down from 37% in March and even earlier in August, when 34% of Americans approved. According to a Reuters analysis of the polling results, the decline is driven by more Republicans turning against the war.”

Economic concerns

“Across multiple polls, American adults and voters said that economic factors are their top concern.

“Emerson respondents cited economic factors such as inflation, jobs and taxes as an important issue in the United States, with 36.5% ranking it as the top issue. Those polled by Reuters/Ipsos cited rising gas prices as a concern amid the Iran conflict.

“In Marquette’s poll, 35% of Americans said inflation and the cost of living was their top issue…

“Economic concerns are historically a driving factor for voters, and could explain why Democrats are leading in polls while the president’s approval rating remains low.”

Concluding thoughts

One thing that stands out in Trump’s policies is the inequality they engender.

Trump and many large corporations and CEOs are doing very well, while millions of Americans are not able or only barely able to get by financially. At the same time, though not considered in this post, the Trump administration is making it harder for people to access important social programs like Head Start and Snap, and wages have fallen behind the continued rise in inflationary prices. Generally, housing, food, gas prices, and health care continue at inflationary levels. And Trump wallows in vanity projects and profits from his power. Amid all of this mess, he has started a trade war with Canada that will surely have a further effect on sending price yet higher.

Trump deserves the low approval ratings and the negative repercussions for the Republican Party. Unless Trump is successful in rigging the upcoming elections, his days of undemocratic power are nearing an end.

The regretful saga of nuclear weapons

Bob Sheak, Aug 16, 2026

The Nuclear age begins as WWII neared its end

Mitchell Zimmerman reminds us that “the nuclear age began 81 years ago” (https://www.commondreams.org/opinionnuclear-weapons-lies). He writes, it all began with a lie. Zimmerman is an attorney, longtime social activist, and author. Here’s some of what he writes.

“Eighty-one years ago this week, a single American airplane, flying almost unnoticed over a Japanese city, dropped a single bomb that destroyed the entire city. Three days later another American plane destroyed a second city.

“The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 killed 100,000 people outright. By the end of the year another 100,000 succumbed to radiation sickness, burns, and other injuries from the blasts.” Some 90% were civilians.

Zimmerman claims they were the first victims of the bomb but overlooks the effects that people in the US and Marshall Islands suffered from previous tests of the bomb before they were dropped on Japan.

Was it necessary to drop the nuclear bombs?

One side argues that it was necessary to drop the bomb with all its horrendous death and destruction to avoid launching an invasion that would have cost thousands of American soldiers their lives. The other side contends that the Japanese would have surrendered if the Americans had agreed to leave the Emperor in place.

Zimmerman’s position is that we did not have to drop the bombs to force the Japanese government to surrender and to avoid American casualties.

His argument. “Because the United States had broken Japanese military codes, American intelligence learned in July 1945 that the Japanese government had already contacted the Soviet Union, America’s World War II ally, to discuss surrender. The Japanese hoped, above all, to ensure that the Allies’ demand for unconditional surrender did not require the Japanese Emperor to abdicate….”

Zimmerman points out that this was a condition that US eventually agreed to in the end, but only after the bombs were dropped on two Japanese cities.

Zimmerman insists, those who made the decision knew that Japan was seeking to end the war and believed that the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, after the Allies’ victory in Europe, would likely be enough to precipitate Japan’s capitulation. He continues.

“A long-hidden, top-secret US intelligence study in 1946 confirmed that the atomic blasts were not what ended the war—it was Russia’s August 8, 1945 declaration of war against Japan and Soviet troop movements.

“US war leaders confirmed the atomic bombing was not needed. The Supreme Commander of Allied Forces General Dwight D. Eisenhower (later President Eisenhower) concluded that ‘Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary… no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.’”

—–

It’s complicated

Science Insights [SI] contends that the question of why the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan is complicated (https://scienceinsights.org/why-did-the-us-use-atomic-bombs-on-japan). The article was published on March 26, 2026. Here’s some of what you find there.

“The United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to force Japan’s immediate surrender and avoid a ground invasion that military planners estimated would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.

“But that single sentence, while accurate, compresses a decision shaped by military strategy, diplomatic failure, Soviet rivalry, and intense internal debate. The full picture is more complicated than any one justification suggests.

The Military Case for the Bombs

By mid-1945, the war in the Pacific had already killed tens of thousands of American servicemembers in brutal island-hopping campaigns. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, fought in the first half of that year, offered a preview of what an invasion of the Japanese mainland would look like. Okinawa alone produced over 12,000 American deaths and more than 100,000 Japanese military and civilian casualties.

SI continues. “Against that backdrop, a new weapon offered something no amount of conventional bombing had achieved: the possibility of ending the war in days rather than months. The U.S. had already been firebombing Japanese cities for months, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Tokyo was, in the words of the military’s own Target Committee, practically ‘rubble.’ The atomic bomb was not a moral departure from existing strategy so much as a dramatic escalation of it, concentrating destruction into a single device.”

How the Decision Was Made

SI – “The decision to use the bomb was not made in a single meeting. It developed through a series of committees and conversations over the spring and summer of 1945. The most important was the Interim Committee, a group of senior officials and scientists convened by Secretary of War Henry Stimson in May 1945 to advise President Truman on nuclear policy.

“After extensive discussion, the committee reached several conclusions that shaped how the bombs would be used. They agreed the Japanese could not be given advance warning, because a failed detonation or a forewarned defense would undermine the weapon’s impact. They agreed the target should not be a purely civilian area, but that the goal should be to ‘make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible.’ In practice, this meant selecting cities with military or industrial significance that were still intact enough for the bomb’s power to be unmistakable.”

The Target Committee, a separate group of military officers and scientists, had been meeting since April to identify suitable cities.

Japan’s Rejection of the Potsdam Declaration

“On July 26, 1945, the United States, Britain, and China issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender and warning of ‘prompt and utter destruction’ if it refused. The declaration did not mention the atomic bomb specifically, nor did it clarify whether Emperor Hirohito would be allowed to remain on the throne, a point of enormous significance to the Japanese government.” Japan’s Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro issued an ambiguous statement that was interpreted by the U.S. as a rejection of their proposal.

Why the Debate Persists

SI – “Historians have argued over this decision for eight decades, and the disagreement is not just about facts but about how to weigh competing values. Those who defend the bombings point to the enormous projected casualties of an invasion, the refusal of Japan’s military leadership to accept surrender, and the fact that conventional bombing was already killing civilians on a massive scale. Those who criticize the decision point to the Franck Report’s warnings (most of which proved correct), the possibility that Japan was already close to surrender, the role of Soviet entry in pushing Japan toward capitulation, and the moral weight of deliberately targeting cities full of civilians.

“The question is further complicated by the fact that multiple justifications existed simultaneously and reinforced each other. Ending the war quickly, saving American lives, demonstrating the weapon’s power to the Soviet Union, and justifying the $2 billion cost of the Manhattan Project were all factors operating at once. No single explanation captures the full reality. The decision emerged from a convergence of military urgency, diplomatic calculation, technological momentum, and the psychology of leaders who had been at war for years and saw a way to finish it.”

—–

Why drop a second nuclear bomb?

James M. Lindsay addresses this question, Aug 9, 2026 (https://www.cfr.org/article/the-bombing-of-nagasaki).

Did the United States act too hastily in dropping a second atomic bomb on Japan?

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. That first-ever use of an atomic weapon killed an estimated 140,000 people, most of whom were civilians. Three days later, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. Some 40,000 people, again mostly civilians, died instantly. Another 34,000 died agonizing deaths from radiation poisoning, flash burns, and other injuries in the weeks that followed.

“The decision to use atomic bombs against Japan remains hotly debated. Both attacks subjected civilian populations to horrific devastation with long-lasting effects. The bombing of Nagasaki comes with the additional criticism that it happened too soon after the Hiroshima attack to allow the Japanese government to fully assess what had happened and possibly quit fighting.”

A survey Lindsay conducted on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations with members of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) ranked the bombing of Hiroshima as the fifteenth-worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history. SHAFR members ranked the bombing of Nagasaki as the tenth-worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history.  

The Interim Committee

Lindsay continues. “In May 1945, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson established an Interim Committee composed of himself and seven other high-ranking officials to advise Truman. They considered and rejected as impractical the suggestion that the United States conduct a non-combat demonstration of the new weapon to warn Japan of what it faced. Their reasoning was straightforward: The United States initially would have only a few working weapons. The demonstration test might be a dud, which could embolden Japan to fight on. If Japan knew the intended target, it might move U.S. prisoners of war to the site or shoot down the U.S. plane carrying the bomb. The Interim Committee instead recommended on June 1, 1945, that the atomic bomb “be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers’ homes; and that it be used without prior warning.”

Some Manhattan Project scientists argued against using their creation. The Manhattan Project created the atomic bombs. On June 11, the scientists argued in what became known as the Franck Report that “the release of this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind” would “precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.” Leo Szilard, who had been instrumental in persuading FDR to launch the Manhattan Project, organized a separate petition that seventy Manhattan Project scientists signed. It urged Truman not to drop an atomic bomb on Japan unless Tokyo was first informed of the weapon and given an opportunity to surrender.

Neither the Franck Report nor Szilard’s petition swayed the Interim Committee. In a meeting on June 21, it reaffirmed its recommendation to Truman.

“Truman accepted the recommendation to use what he called ‘the most terrible thing ever discovered’ against Japan. He was in Potsdam, Germany, meeting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, when he learned of the successful Trinity Test. On July 26, 1945, Truman and Churchill issued, with the concurrence of Chinese President Chiang Kai-shek, the Potsdam Declaration. Among other things, it declared:

‘We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.’

Japan’s military-dominated government rejected the Potsdam Declaration.

Hiroshima

The United States carried out the Potsdam Declaration’s threat of “prompt and utter destruction” on August 6 when a B-29 bomber named the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb known as Little Boy on Hiroshima, a city of some 350,000 people. As many as 80,000 people died instantly.

Later that day, Truman announced to the world that the United States had developed an atomic bomb. He went on to warn:

“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.”

Despite Hiroshima’s destruction, Japan refused to surrender.

Nagasaki, the second target

“A specially equipped B-29 bomber named Bockscar departed from Tinian in the Northern Mariana Islands early on August 9. The crew had nicknamed its cargo, a bomb of a different design than the one dropped on Hiroshima, Fat Man. The crew’s orders were to target Kokura, now Kitakyushu, a city of 130,000 that was home to one of Japan’s largest weapons factories. U.S. bombers had yet to hit Kokura with conventional bombs. That meant that the United States could measure Fat Man’s full destructive power.

“When Bockscar reached Kokura, clouds and smoke obscured the target, the city’s weapons factory. On the plane’s third bombing run, it began to attract heavy antiaircraft fire. Following a pre-established procedure, the B-29 redirected to its secondary target, Nagasaki, a port city with a population of more than 250,000 people. The clouds over Nagasaki broke just as Bockscar arrived. The plane dropped its cargo at 11:01 a.m. local time. Fat Man fell for 47 seconds and then exploded at a height of 1,650 feet.

Japan’s Surrender

The Japanese government communicated its surrender to the United States and its allies on August 10. That morning, Truman had ordered that no further atomic bombs be dropped on Japan. Vice President Henry A. Wallace wrote in his diary:

Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, ‘all those kids.’”

“Japan’s surrender came with one condition, that the emperor be allowed to remain as Japan’s ceremonial head of state. Several days of negotiations on the details followed. On August 15, Emperor Hirohito went on national radio to announce Japan’s surrender. It was the first time that most Japanese heard his voice.”

The Ambiguous Legacy of Nagasaki

“The question that hangs over the bombing of Nagasaki, even more so than over the bombing of Hiroshima, is whether it was necessary. Even some people who supported attacking Hiroshima believe the answer is no. As the famed physicist Hans Bethe, who worked on the Manhattan Project, put it: ‘I think it was necessary to drop one, but the second one could have easily been avoided. I think Japan would have capitulated anyway.’”

“Critics of the decision to bomb Nagasaki ask difficult questions. Was three days sufficient time for Japanese leaders to absorb the enormity of what had happened to Hiroshima? Could the United States have done more to persuade them that Japan faced additional atomic bomb attacks? Was the Soviet entry into the war sufficient by itself to convince Japanese leaders to surrender?”

—–

We must remember the enormous harm done by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan as recent treaties are ended.

William D. Hartung and Mari Faines maintain the Anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Have Special Meaning in a World Out of Control. August 7, 2026

(https://www.thenation.com/article/world/hiroshima-nagasaki-under-arms-race).

William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Mari Faines is the manager of external affairs and coalitions at Democracy Forward. She previously advised on strategic communications and congressional strategy at the US State Department’s Office of the AUKUS Senior Advisor, and held leadership roles at Global Zero and Physicians for Social Responsibility focused on nuclear nonproliferation and social justice. She holds an MSc from SOAS University of London and a BA from Colgate University.

Here’s some of what they write.

“As the last US-Russia nuclear arms control treaty expires, the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki carry renewed urgency for a world edging toward a new arms race.”

“This August marks yet another anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but 2026 carries a special weight—for the first time since the Cold War, the United States has no active nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, following the expiration of the New START nuclear arms reduction agreement.

Hartun and Faines continue. “The story of nuclear weapons is more than just the story of scientists working away in secrecy at Los Alamos, or leaders wielding nuclear threats—and, in the case of the Cuban missile crisis, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. It is the story of devastation, disease, and death caused by the development and deployment of those weapons, even if they are never used again in warfare. The deadly consequences of nuclear development have fallen most heavily on communities of color, from the dire health consequences of mining uranium in the Congo and the American Southwest, to the generational cancers in communities downwind from nuclear tests, from the Marshall Islands to the American West; communities of color have been disproportionately affected by nuclear testing and warfare.”

“The stories of the civilian victims of nuclear arms racing are increasingly at risk of being rewritten, sanitized, or erased from official histories altogether. The risks posed by the lack of arms control measures and the concerted effort to whitewash the dangers of possessing nuclear weapons, as well as the catastrophe that would come from using them, make nuclear use at some future date more likely. With no treaty framework in place, active global conflicts like the runaway wars in the Middle East and the ongoing war in Ukraine, and coordinated efforts to erase the history of nuclear dangers, we need to treat this anniversary as more than a commemoration or an expression of regret. We need to treat it as a turning point for humanity.

—–

The Genocidal Weapon and the Nuclear Exception

Eric Ross, analyzes “the genocidal weapon and the nuclear exception” on Counter Punch, Aug 11, 2026 (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/08/11/the-genocidal-weapon-and-the-nuclear-exception).

“It has been eighty-one years since the atomic bombings delivered an unmistakable message. From the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humanity was faced with a choice that Martin Luther King Jr. would later describe as one between ‘nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.’ The intervening decades have made our answer painfully clear.

“As a result, today we live as prisoners consigned to a permanent death row, having organized our world not around a commitment to collective sanity, safety, and security but around the perpetual preparation for collective destruction. The nuclear threat has predictably returned to the center of world politics, from Ukraine and Taiwan to Palestine and Iran.

“From their first use, the atomic bombs were immoral and illegal. Within a matter of years, such weapons would come to be described, in the words of their own architects, as a ‘weapon of genocide,’ one which serves no military end beyond the slaughter of civilians.

“As such, states that possess nuclear weapons cannot be understood as guardians of the international order, represented by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, but as its greatest threats, outcasts from law and humanity. They are, in the words of Daniel Ellsberg, adherents to no recognizable ethics other than perhaps “a form of Satanism, a worship of unbridled power that gives national leaders the right to gamble with forces that can undo creation.”

“Yet instead of banning the bomb, the postwar international legal order accommodated it, failing to proscribe nuclear weapons, as it has for chemical and biological weapons. The result has been a world in which the capacity to exterminate millions, even billions, of people is treated not as the ultimate international crime but as the ultimate marker of international prestige and a currency of geopolitical power. So long as some states insist upon the legitimacy of their own atomic arsenals then, efforts to abolish them will remain, however well intentioned, little more than ‘rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.’”

“Instead of being prohibited, the bomb was rendered outside the law. At Nuremberg and Tokyo, the U.S. established a legal exceptionalism that insulated nuclear weapons, and the strategic bombing that first made them conceivable, from meaningful scrutiny. Prosecutors opted to omit these crimes entirely, rendering them beyond the reach of law. Universal justice, in short, was subordinated to political expediency.”

——

The Delusion of Strategic Stability in a Nuclear World

John Burroughs argues there can be no way to exist peaceably as long as nuclear bombs exist, Aug 16,2026 (https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/delusion-nuclear-stability).

Burroughs is senior analyst for the New York City-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Here are excerpts from his article.

“Suppose for a moment that reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other nuclear powers will produce “strategic stability” for the rest of this century. That is, that there will be no nuclear war or war on a major scale between the nuclear powers.

Burroughs poses questions. “Is that a world we should want to live in, a world where security depends on the potential for the devastation of entire societies, a world where we are supposed to live moral lives in the context of an immoral system of global security? My answer is no.” Is the concept of “deterrence” sufficient to prevent a nuclear? Again, no.

“It is a fantasy that reliance on nuclear arms can be counted upon to produce stability indefinitely. That can be demonstrated just by looking at today’s conflicts. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in violation of the United Nations Charter was preceded by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to resort to nuclear weapons should Western states intervene in support of Ukraine. Then in the fall of 2022, it was credibly reported that that the Biden administration believed that the Russian government was operationally moving toward the use of nuclear weapons.

“The US attack on Iran, another violation of the UN Charter, has been accompanied by President Donald Trump’s bluster about wreaking society-ending devastation on Iran, evoking the possibility of use of nuclear weapons. Whether or not his nuclear bluster is specific and credible enough to be considered a “threat” as a matter of international law, it certainly runs counter to the notion that use of nuclear weapons is out of the question.

Burroughs continues. “Nuclear deterrence involves the readiness to inflict massive devastation on other societies, even if targets are said to be military. It is planning and preparation for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity and in some cases crimes against peace. Crimes against peace concern aggressive war. The use of nuclear weapons to initiate an aggressive war would certainly be a crime against peace. But there is a good case that the first use of nuclear weapons by a state defending itself would be so escalatory and disproportionate as to be a crime against peace.

“A broader view of the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility is that citizens are acting in accordance with that principle when they take responsibility for preventing nuclear war. That can be done in many ways. One is non-violent protest, as took place August 6 outside the Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory in California.

“Reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other states means that the world is in a state of risk, immorality, and illegality. The imperative is to end that state of affairs. These bombs must be abolished.

“One positive example. “In 2017, non-nuclear weapon states negotiated the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). One hundred states are now signatories, not including, however, any nuclear-armed states. Whether the TPNW will serve as a vehicle for the nuclear-armed states to accomplish the elimination of nuclear weapons is open to doubt; they probably would create their own vehicle. Without question, though, the TPNW is a marvelous statement of the principles that should motivate and guide the achievement of a world free of nuclear weapons. The first review conference of the TPNW will be held late this year.”

Burroughs concludes: “the reality is that nuclear abolition, probably in conjunction with other arms control and with changes in global governance, is by far the best way to address the risks, immorality, and illegality of reliance on nuclear arms.”

—–

Concluding thoughts

The story of nuclear weapons begins in the United States. The U.S. government under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the greenlight for the Manhattan project to build a bomb to commence, the first atomic bombs were then created and tested, and, under dubious assumptions, the bombs were subsequently used to blow up two Japanese cities, causing massive destruction, death, and lasting radiation illnesses. The testing and development of nuclear bombs continued, as did the costs to people and the environment. Sadly, the U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries are now in the process of “modernizing” their nuclear arsenals. This is despite the fact that the majority of countries in the U.N. General Assembly have voted to ban nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the U.S. unfortunately maintains a ‘first use’ policy with respect to nuclear weapons and, as president, Trump has the power to launch nuclear weapons.

Health and Health Care worsen under Trump

Health and Health Care worsen under Trump

Bob Sheak and Arlene Sheak, August 1, 2026

Introduction

Trump and his Republican Party not only continue to fail in creating a viable health care system, they are also making the present system even more inadequate. It is but one example of how Trump and his Republican cronies are reducing opportunities generally for the majority of Americans. His Iran War, tariffs, massive deportation, regressive tax cuts, and self-enrichment schemes are examples. All this is happening despite his hollow presidential campaign promises to support policies that would benefit all citizens.

—–

Trump Is Making America Uninsured Again

Sasha Abramsky offers some evidence of this trend, May 16, 2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/trump-is-making-america-uninsured-again).

Abramsky’ central point is that the Trump’s GOP is heading into the 2026 midterms as the party that is making health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans. Consider some of his ample evidence.

He writes, “In 2025, the Trump administration successfully pushed Congress to enact nearly $1 trillion in health care cuts over the coming decade, which the Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated would result in 10 million people losing health coverage by 2034. More recently, it has blocked any and all efforts to extend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credit subsidies for people buying insurance on the state exchanges. In demanding that the GOP leadership in Congress prevent at all costs a continuation of the expanded ACA tax credits, Donald Trump intimated that his administration was on the verge of proposing a better and more affordable health care reform to replace the ACA system.

“Nothing of that nature has materialized. Instead, the administration’s health reforms have been shockingly small-bore — a handful of measures to lower the costs of prescription drugs, more incentives for consumers to create health savings accounts, a rollback of regulations on catastrophic coverage plans — thus, making it easier for younger, healthier, patients to buy junk insurance, but doing nothing for those who are older or suffer from chronic conditions.

Abramsky continues. “Over the past months, even these baby steps have stalled out, with the GOP seemingly and inexplicably resigned to the fact that it will be heading into the midterm elections as the party that is putting health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans. Early in the Iran war, Trump was caught saying that the federal government could no longer afford its massive Medicare commitments now that the country was engaged in an expensive overseas conflict, and it would have to roll back responsibility for paying for this bedrock safety net program onto the states.”Bottom of Form

—-

Evidence that millions of Americans are already losing their health insurance

Journalist Aparna Soni reports that “2.6 million Americans Lost Health Insurance in 2025 After ACA Subsidies Expired, Leading to Real Health Consequences,” July 15, 2026 (https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/07/15/2-6-million-americans-lost-health-insurance-in-2025-after-asa-subsidies-expired-leading-to-health-consequences).

Soni continues. “Millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces faced a stark choice this year: pay more than twice as much to keep the same plan or go without. Many did not keep their coverage.

“Federal data released on June 26, 2026, shows that marketplace enrollment fell from 21.8 million people in February 2025 to 19.2 million in February 2026, a decline of about 2.6 million people, or 12%. That is the steepest single-year decline since the marketplaces opened in 2014. ACA marketplaces (or exchanges) are government-regulated platforms where individuals and small businesses can shop for and purchase compliant private health insurance.

Soni is a health economist who studies how insurance coverage affects people’s health, I see the drop as more than a numbers story. The key question is: What happens to people’s health when coverage becomes too expensive to keep?”

Why enrollment fell

“The drop in enrollment numbers traces back largely to the expiration of the ACA’s enhanced premium tax credits, which lowered enrollees’ monthly payments when they were in effect from 2021 through 2025.”

—–

Trump also eliminated Medicare Part D Subsidies After Vowing to “Protect” the Program in 2024

Chris Walker reports on this for Truthout, July 29, 2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/trump-to-end-medicare-part-d-subsidies-after-vowing-to-protect-program-in-2024). Walker is a news writer at Truthout, “based in Madison, Wisconsin. Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on people.”

Walker provides context.

“Mehmet Oz, [Trump’s appointed] head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, justified the change by citing the hollow reason, ‘stabilizing’ markets.’

“On Tuesday [July 28] the Trump administration announced its plans to end a subsidy program for Medicare Part D, which has helped lower prescription drug costs for tens of millions of enrollees in the program for the past two years.”

“The Biden-era program provided subsidies to insurance companies, which in turn lowered the cost of drugs for seniors in Medicare. If repealed, many enrollees in the program could see their prescription costs increase by hundreds of dollars annually.

“The announcement comes at a time,’ Walker writes, ‘when other costs, including for everyday consumer goods, have been increasing, too. The changes to Medicare Part D will go into effect at the end of this year.”

Trump misled the public

Walker reports that the upcoming program cuts Bottom of Form

contradict “promises and commitments to protecting Medicare that President Donald Trump and the Republican Party in general made during the 2024 elections.” During his presidential campaign, for example, Trump said he would ‘always protect’ Medicare,’ strengthen it for future generations, and promised there would be ‘no cuts’ to the program.”

Now millions of Americans struggle to afford medical insurance

Walker cites DNC Rapid Response Director Kendall Witmer who said in a statement “Donald Trump and Republicans are doing everything they can to make healthcare unaffordable for Americans, especially for seniors,” She added:

Trump and Republicans massive healthcare cuts have pushed working families to the brink, Walker writes. Americans must now grapple with skyrocketing insurance premiums, even bigger medical bills, and rising prescription drug costs. They “are taking on record amounts of medical debt just to make ends meet — all while Trump and his family get even richer and his wealthy donors rake in tax cuts.”

Democrats have a different approach

Democrats and those on the Left want a very different approach. For example, “ In an op-ed for Truthout co-written last month by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, the pair called for repairing the broken U.S. health system by expanding Medicare eligibility to every person in the country.”

Walker notes that Omar and Gilbert added: “Given the resources of our country, we can no longer justify the status quo. The U.S. spends almost twice per person on health care compared to other wealthy nations and our outcomes are often worse. Millions of Americans remain uninsured or underinsured. This is utterly outrageous, especially in the wealthiest country in the world.

“‘We are sick and tired of our health care system putting profits before people,’ Omar and Gilbert said. ‘We need to create a future in which every single person in the U.S. can get the care they need regardless of their ability to pay.’”

——

Hospitals are now facing an increasing number of uninsured patients

Reed Abelson reports on how a report by hospitals document that the healthcare cuts have led to a sharp increase in uninsured patients coming for uninsured care

(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/30/business/aca-obamacare-health-insurance.html).

She writes, “More people who lost coverage after congressional Republicans ended enhanced federal subsidies are now seeking care in emergency rooms and unable to pay bills.”

Abelson continues. “More and more uninsured patients are showing up in hospital emergency rooms and clinics, having lost their coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

“Executives running some of the biggest hospital systems, including large for-profit chains spanning many states, expressed concern over the unexpectedly sharp rise in uninsured patients and the costs associated with treating them.”

—–

More evidence on how hospitals are facing funding problems and many are closing

Whitney Curry Wimbash reports for The American Prospect on how Trump Funding Cuts are Endangering City and Rural Hospitals Alike

(https://prospect.org/2026/07/15/trump-funding-cuts-endangering-city-rural-hospitals-alike). Here’s some of what she reports.

“A year after Trump ripped $1 trillion out of the American health care system, hundreds of hospitals have closed and millions of people are without health insurance. The majority are in urban areas.”

Winbash continues. “In the year since President Trump stole $1 trillion out of the American health care system to free up funding for mass deportation, tax breaks for his billionaire friends, and, it turns out, illegal wars of aggression, much of the resulting conversation has focused on how the funding cuts would impact rural hospitals and patients. The idea was that most of the harm would hit there, since rural medical providers were already on the brink of collapse across the country.

“But new research from National Nurses United challenges that assumption. Researchers identified 602 financially vulnerable hospitals across 47 states, which together operated with an aggregated deficit of about $10.2 billion. They found that when the full impact of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act finally hits, the group’s deficit will increase to between $15.4 billion and $17.9 billion. Of this group, 366 are in metropolitan areas, nearly 61 percent, while the rest are in rural or semirural areas,” often financially vulnerable hospitals in cities that tend to serve communities of poor and working-class people.

Trump ended the Affordable Care Act

Winbash continues. “Trump’s Republican Party also refused to extend Biden-era Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits, which caused enrollment for ACA insurance to drop by about 4.2 million people as of February 2026. Insurers that participate in the program jacked prices so high that enrollees faced an average 114 percent increase just to stay with the same plan as the year before; they have proposed a double-digit increase for next year, too, with a median increase of 14 percent for 2027.”

Hospitals are sending patients massive bills just when they can’t afford them and even suing them for payments, Winbash notes.

There’s more bad news.

Winbash continues. “The services hospitals typically cut first are pediatric, maternity, and psychiatric units as well as home health care, all of which typically do not make hospitals as much money as other divisions, Protect our Care’s Director of Policy Programs Vaishu Jawahar told the Prospect. With more cuts on the way, however, more hospitals are converting to emergency-only service centers.”

—–

The Crisis of Care Work

Robert Kuttner focuses on “the crisis of care work in an article for The American Prospect “(https://prospect.org/2026/07/21/crisis-of-care-work-trump-tps-haitians) .

His contention is that “The end of Temporary Protected Status and Trump’s budget cuts make a bad situation worse.”

Examples of the non-professionals who serve the sick.

Those who serve the sick “come from Haiti, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Uganda, Jamaica, the Philippines, and dozens of other nations. They serve people who may be aging, frail, sick, disabled, dying; often frightened, sometimes angry and unappreciative.

“They bathe their clients, change adult diapers, supervise medications, and provide companionship in relationships that are intimate as well as professional. Their compassion can be ennobling.

“These are the people Donald Trump hates.

Growing shortage of care workers as funds are cut

“America today faces a worsening shortage of care workers, as the population ages, needs expand, and deportations increase. Too few people are willing to work for low pay in nursing homes, hospice care, home care, and as personal care attendants for people with disabilities. These jobs start at $20 an hour or less, and max out at around $25 for experienced people.

Care workers are both skilled and kind

“Anyone who has personally encountered care workers notices that despite the low pay, they tend to be both skilled and kind. The label, care, is exactly the right term. In my own experience with loved ones reliant on nurses and aides, most care workers are deeply caring.

Government has paid too little for much of care work

Kuttner points out, “Care work is heavily funded by government, except for a minority of affluent clients who can self-pay. Hospice care is financed by Medicare. Long-term nursing home care is mostly reimbursed by Medicaid. Care that supports independent living for people with disabilities is funded by Medicaid or the VA. Home care is underwritten by several agencies.

“All of these sources of public funding are barely adequate to the need, and that severely limits the room for better pay. And all are under further threat from Trump

budget cuts as well as mass deportations.

Unions have pressed for improved benefits for care workers

“In heavily Democratic states, the strategy of the labor movement and other advocates has been to press allies in government to allocate more budget for reimbursements, typically through Medicaid, which in turn can translate into better pay. Unions also organize workers directly. This has had only limited success because of other financial demands on Medicaid.

“SEIU has focused on nursing home workers. In Massachusetts, modest increases in Medicaid funding have created a bit more space to press for higher wages. SEIU’s big health local 1199 has organized certified nursing assistants in about 9 percent of Massachusetts nursing homes. According to Massachusetts SEIU leaders, CNAs in unionized nursing homes start at around $22-$23 an hour. That union premium makes life better for these workers but is far from sufficient to increase worker supply.”

Trump’s war on immigrants cuts care service

Kuttner observes that “TRUMP’S WAR ON IMMIGRANTS has cut deeply into the care workforce. The strategy of using ICE to intimidate immigrant workers into self-deporting, even when they currently have legal work status, is all too effective.”

Trump’s ends Temporary Protect Status adding to the shortage

“Separately,” Kuttner writes, “Trump has been systematically ending a legal immigration system called Temporary Protected Status. When Trump’s second term began, TPS was protecting some 1.3 million people facing various perils in their home countries. However, Trump has already ended TPS for people from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, and for most Venezuelans.

“Ai-jen Poo, the founder of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the coalition Caring Across Generations, told me, “The end of Haitian TPS will be devastating for hundreds of thousands of families who rely upon Haitian care workers. Providers will close their doors, jobs will be lost—for citizens as well as immigrants. The entire industry was already buckling under the pressures of cuts to Medicaid, and high workforce turnover due to low wages. At a moment when the need for care is surging, particularly on the part of our growing aging population, we should be expanding and strengthening our care workforce, not gutting it with cruel and misguided policy.”

Solutions?

Kuttner sees two long-term solutions. “First, we need massive investment in caregiving work, so that different categories of care are not reliant on a patchwork of chronically inadequate funding. Second, the war on immigrants needs to end.” Both have a chance only when Trump’s presidency ends.

“After Trump finally leaves office, Congress could also resume its efforts to enact comprehensive immigration reform, which was fast-tracked for passage in early 2018 until Trump decided that he’d prefer to use immigration as a political cudgel and persuaded key Republicans to oppose it. Comprehensive immigration reform would regularize the status of long-term undocumented residents who have stayed out of trouble, give legal status to ‘Dreamers’ who were brought to the U.S. as children, and crack down on employers who hire people not entitled to work.”

“Congress should revise the law so that admission of asylum seekers and refugees is mandatory, not optional; and shift judicial review to the independent judiciary established in the Constitution.

“America has plenty of immigrants who want to work in the care economy. We should welcome that workforce and pay them decently.”

—–

Concluding thoughts

Trump has made the already inadequate U.S. healthcare system far worse than it has been. His supporters, perhaps one-third of the population, have gone along with him as they have Trump’s other priorities. His rich and well-to-do followers like the tax cuts, deregulation, and pro-fossil-fuel energy policy.

He and his administration do all this because they are ideologically opposed to programs and policies that give benefits to ordinary Americans. To top it off, Trump falsely believes in his ability to make the best decisions.

Fortunately for democracy’s future, Trump’s poll rankings are low, Republicans are losing elections, his Iran War is highly unpopular, and he is having trouble getting his candidates confirmed by the Senate. Meanwhile, as this post shows, he is doing a great deal of harm. But there is light at the end of this dark time.

Trump cares less that his policies contribute to global warming

Bob and Arlene Sheak

July 13, 2026

I – There is an option to fossil fuels

Ezra Klein considers the very good and the very bad news on climate crisis (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/10/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-bill-mckibben.html).

“Here’s the good news: Green energy is getting better and cheaper, faster than we had ever dared hope.”

“In April, the energy think tank Ember found that all of the new electricity demand around the world in 2025 was met with green power. That is wild.”

Klein quotes Bill McKibben. “The stuff that we spent my whole lifetime calling alternative energy from the sun and the wind is now the obvious, common sense, straightforward way to produce power. Sometime earlier this decade, we passed some invisible line where it became cheaper to produce energy from the sun and the wind than from setting stuff on fire.”

McKibben –

“Australia is now producing so much solar power and wind power that in the middle of the day, they have more than they need. So they’re trying to get people to switch some of their demand to the middle of the day. The way that they’re doing it is saying to Australians: You get free electricity between noon and 3 p.m.”

“But they’re also out there buying storage batteries, which are now cheap, so they can fill them up in the afternoon and run the household at night. That’s a miracle.”

McKibben continues.

“Half of America, 180 million people, live at the same latitude as Australia.

“But here’s something that will at least give you some sense of possibility: California is the place in the U.S. that committed most thoroughly to building out renewable energy.

“Sometime in the last two years, they’ve passed a real tipping point. Most days now in California, they produce more than 100 percent of their electricity for long stretches of the day from clean energy. When night falls on the Golden State, often now the biggest source of supply to the grid are batteries that have spent the afternoon soaking up excess sunshine.

“The bottom line is that California, the fourth largest economy in the world, is using 60 percent less natural gas to produce electricity than it was two years ago. That’s a very big shift in a very big place.”

“In April 2026, the global energy think tank Ember released their Global Electricity Review — as you know better than me, a big moment every year for energy wonks. It found that 75 percent of global electricity growth in 2025 was met by solar alone, which is amazing.

“Renewables were over one-third of power generation, for the first time overtaking coal, and — I found this kind of wild — I think it defies a lot of people’s expectations — in 2025, in China and India, fossil fuel generation fell for the first time.”

The bad news

“But here is the bad news: Climate change is accelerating. We’re discovering new ways that the climate system is more fragile, more sensitive to emissions, than we previously had thought.”

II – Heat waves would be virtually impossible without “climate change”

This is the central point of Raymond Zhong’s New York Times’ article (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/03/climate/heat-wave-us-canada-climate-change.html}. Zhong reports on climate and environmental issues for The Times.

He writes, “Heat and humidity as severe, prolonged and far-reaching as this week’s would have been ‘virtually impossible’ in the Northeast and eastern Canada before humans began warming the planet, a team of scientists said on Friday.”

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the burning of oil, gas and coal have trapped more of the sun’s heat at Earth’s surface, raising temperatures worldwide for more than a century. Summer hot spells are nothing new, but because of the excess heat around the planet caused by global warming, they can produce higher temperatures today than they once did.”

III – Heat waves in Europe

Chris Walker reports for Truthout on a Study: Europe Heat Wave “Virtually Impossible” Without Human-Made Climate Change,” June 30, 2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/study-europe-heat-wave-impossible-without-human-made-climate-change).

Chris Walker is a news writer at Truthout, based in Madison, Wisconsin. Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on people. He can be found on most social media platforms under the handle @thatchriswalker.

Here’s some of what he reports.

“A recently published study finds that the current heat wave embroiling Europe would be ‘virtually impossible’ were it not for human-made climate change.”

“The study from World Weather Attribution notes that, over the regions of the continent they examined, this heat wave is the most severe that has ever been seen, with nearly half of the cities and geographical areas observed breaking heat stress records. Heat stress occurs when the body is unable to cool itself through sweating.”

“Climate change is to blame” for the heat wave that Europeans experienced, said Theo Keeping, co-author of the study and research associate at Imperial College London. ‘This heat wave would have been virtually impossible even 50 years ago without human-caused climate change.’”

Bottom of Form

Walker continues. “World Weather Attribution studied more than 800 cities in Europe. Of those areas, 45 percent have recorded or are forecast to report their highest heat stress levels ever for the late June period, the organization said.

“Greenhouse gas emissions emanating from the burning of fossil fuels, leading to climate change, are to blame, the report said.”

Europe’s Heat Waves Melt the Alps’ Glaciers

Raymond Zhon and Mira Rajanasakul report on this example of global warming’s efects (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/02/climate/europe-heat-waves-melting-glaciers.html). Raymond Zhong reports on climate and environmental issues for The Times. Mira Rojanasakul is a Times reporter who uses data and graphics to cover climate and the environment.”

They report, “Europe’s recent heat waves erased the snow atop Switzerland’s glaciers far earlier in the year than normal, exposing bare ice that could melt away in extraordinary volumes in the coming months.

“‘We are now in a state where we should normally be in August,’ said Matthias Huss, a glaciologist at the Swiss university ETH Zurich. ‘It is really a worrying situation.’”

“The glaciers of the Alps supply water across Europe for drinking, farming, generating hydropower and cooling nuclear plants. Each winter, fresh snow piles up on the glaciers, shielding them from the sun in the spring. But once the snow has melted, the ice itself begins to disappear, and the water is effectively lost to the glacier forever. That leaves less water for future use, bringing closer the day when water in Europe becomes an erratic resource.

“‘It’s not something that is just in 100 years or so,” Dr. Huss said. ‘It’s in 10, 20 years from now.’”

“Switzerland’s glaciers started this spring with 25 percent less snow than the average from 2010 to 2020. Two hot spells then came in quick succession.

“Temperatures reached record highs across France, Britain, Germany, Switzerland and other nations, in an extended bout of severe heat that climate scientists said would not have been possible without the influence of global warming caused by humans.

“As a result, the total amount of snow and ice on Switzerland’s glaciers had shrunk back to its level from before last winter by June 29, a month sooner than normal, according to scientists’ estimates. Only in 2022, another record-hot year for Europe, was that milestone crossed earlier, by just three days.”

IV – Trump’s policies worsens global warming: Examples

Investing in coal plants

The burning of fossil fuels is the primary source of global warming. Ajani Stilla reports on how Trump and his administration ignore this well-established scientific fact and continue to invest in coal, the most polluting of the fossil fuels

(https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18062026/trump-administration-funds-coal-plants-with-repeated-violations). Stilla’s article was published on June 18, 2026.

Stilla writes, “At least three of the 12 coal plants the Trump administration funded have been repeatedly cited for violating environmental regulations, amplifying public-health concerns.”

Here’s an example.

“In 2023, after years of pollution, equipment failures and health concerns, the Cumberland Fossil Plant in Tennessee was slated to close within the decade.

The coal-fired plant had been part of a multibillion-dollar settlement in 2011 after its operator, the Tennessee Valley Authority, failed to install pollution control technology a decade earlier. Regulators cited the plant for more air-pollution violations in 2017 and 2023. TVA said it would shutter Cumberland’s units in 2026 and 2028.

“Then the Trump administration replaced four of TVA’s board members, and the agency reneged on its retirement plan in February. Now, TVA has a federal pledge for $46 million to extend Cumberland’s lifespan—part of a nationwide push by President Donald Trump to keep older coal plants running.

“Cumberland is one of at least three of the 12 plants receiving the Department of Energy grants that have been repeatedly cited for violating the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or both, an Inside Climate News review found. The other two are Grand River Energy Center in Oklahoma and the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant in North Carolina, cited for various environmental violations, such as releasing wastewater with excess pollutants, over the past decade.”

Stilla quotes Maggie Shober, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s research director, who told her that “retiring coal plants is ‘one of our primary ways’ to combat pollution, climate change and associated health harms. Extending their operations, she said, ‘will make climate change happen faster and will make it worse over the long-term.’”

“Courtney Bernhardt, research director for the watchdog group Environmental Integrity Project, said funding plants with a record of violations aligns with Trump’s second-term policies.

“‘I’m not surprised—but I am disturbed,’ Bernhardt said in an email. ‘The Trump administration seems to disregard the compliance status of many of the plants that they’re trying to put forward, and they’re trying to, at the same time, weaken permitting requirements for the energy sector.’”

Paying energy corporations to close wind farms

-Maxine Joselow reports that the “Trump administration paid Duke Energy $129 million to halt an offshore wind farm” project (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/climate/trump-offshore-wind-duke-energy.html). Wind energy is a relatively clean source of energy.

Joselow writes, “The Trump administration on Monday said it would pay Duke Energy $129 million to abandon its plans to build an offshore wind farm off North Carolina.”

Here’s more from Joselow’s report.

“It was the fourth such deal struck by the administration to throttle the development of offshore wind power, a source of renewable energy that President Trump has disparaged for decades.

“Under the agreement, Duke Energy would surrender its lease in federal waters for a wind farm that was planned in the Carolina Long Bay area, roughly 15 to 22 miles off southeastern North Carolina. The project was in the early stages of development and construction had not yet begun.

“The government plans to reimburse Duke Energy $129 million, slightly less than the amount that the utility paid for the lease under the Biden administration. Duke Energy would then reinvest that money in other sources of energy favored by the Trump administration, which could include new nuclear and natural gas projects, according to the utility.

“Scientists and environmentalists say that offshore wind farms could play a crucial role in the fight against climate change. Unlike burning fossil fuels, wind turbines do not generate any of the greenhouse gases that are dangerously warming the planet. And unlike large-scale solar farms, they do not take up vast amounts of valuable land.

Trump’s Interior Secretary Doug Burgum “repeated his earlier claims that offshore wind farms threaten national security. Last year, the Interior Department cited those concerns when ordering a halt to the construction of five other wind farms off the East Coast, saying their spinning turbines could interfere with military radar. But several federal judges struck down the stop-work orders, saying they were unpersuaded by the administration’s arguments.

“After its losses in court, the administration pivoted to a new strategy: paying developers to walk away from offshore wind projects. It struck the first such deal in March with the French energy company TotalEnergies.

“That deal saw the government pay TotalEnergies nearly $1 billion to abandon plans to build two wind farms, one off New York and the other in the same area off North Carolina. Seven Democratic-controlled states have sued the administration over that agreement, calling it an illegal use of taxpayer dollars.

“The latest deal with Duke Energy means the government has so far committed to spend more than $2.5 billion to get companies to terminate their offshore wind leases.”

The Trump Administration Taps Climate Science Critic to Oversee Flagship Report

Maxine Joselow and Brad Plumer report on this

(https://www.nytimes.co/2026/07/10/climate/trump-climate-assessment-wielicki.html).

They write, “The Trump administration has appointed a critic of mainstream climate science to oversee the federal government’s flagship report on how climate change affects the United States.

“Matthew M. Wielicki is a former geochemist at the University of Alabama with no formal training in climate science. On social media and podcasts, he frequently argues that the mainstream scientific view on climate change is too dire and overlooks the positive effects of a warming planet.

“Now Dr. Wielicki is leading the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which compiles the National Climate Assessment, a sweeping report required by Congress that details the effects of rising temperatures in every region of the country. Policymakers, communities and industries use it to plan for the future.

“The report is typically published every few years. But last spring, the administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been working on the next update.

“The last climate assessment, published in 2023, found that human-caused global warming was supercharging wildfires in the West, droughts in the Great Plains and heat waves from coast to coast.

“President Trump has called climate change a ‘hoax,’ and his administration has dismantled climate initiatives across the federal government. Russell T. Vought, the White House budget director, has called for overhauling the Global Change Research Program, saying its findings have been used to justify environmental lawsuits that constrained government actions.”

“Politico first reported on Dr. Wielicki’s appointment. Reached by phone on Friday, Dr. Wielicki said he could not speak to reporters without permission from the White House, which declined to make him available.”

“In 2023, Dr. Wielicki resigned from his untenured position as an assistant professor of geosciences at the University of Alabama. He wrote on social media at the time that earth scientists had embraced a ‘false ‘climate emergency’ narrative’ and that academia had been overrun with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.”

But the evidence says otherwise.

“The planet has already warmed roughly 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, on average. Global sea levels have risen about 8 to 9 inches since the 19th century, with some parts of the U.S. coast seeing even higher rates, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Some regions of the Southeast and Gulf Coast have seen a five to tenfold increase in coastal flooding at high tide as a result, the agency has said. Globally, rising seas could inundate large swaths of low-lying island nations this century under even moderate warming, according to the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international assessment compiled by hundreds of scientists around the world. Some smaller coastal villages have already relocated to higher ground.

“‘The reality is that accelerating sea level rise is already having impacts all around the world, including along the U.S. East Coast,’ said Rachel Cleetus, the senior policy director with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.

“‘We need good science to help us get ready for these impacts that are coming our way instead of putting our heads in the sand and denying it’s happening, and as a result, putting more people’s lives and safety at risk,’ said Dr. Cleetus, who was among the scientists the Trump administration dismissed from working on the next climate assessment.”

“Meade Krosby, a principal scientist at the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and a former contributor to the assessment who was also dismissed by the Trump administration, said she worried that the next version of the report would include false or misleading information.

“‘Communities are experiencing unprecedented heat and wildfires and floods and other climate risks that are being driven by the burning of fossil fuels, and they really need credible tools and resources right now to help them respond, not a collection of climate denial talking points,’ Dr. Krosby said.”

“The U.S. Global Change Research Program was established by Congress in 1990 and coordinates environmental research among 15 federal agencies.

“During Mr. Trump’s first term, his administration published the fourth climate assessment on the day after Thanksgiving in 2018, in an apparent attempt to minimize attention. But The New York Times and other media outlets still highlighted its conclusion that global warming posed an imminent threat to the economy, environment and public health. The Biden administration released the fifth climate assessment in 2023.

“After the Trump administration dismissed the scientists who had been working on what would be the sixth assessment, two major scientific groups

said they would carry on a large portion of that work independently. The groups, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, said they planned to publish a collection of climate research in their peer-reviewed journals to help inform future assessments”

V -What to expect in the future

Mark Hertsgaard writes on global warming becoming ever more dangerous, The Nation, June 22, 2026 (https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/this-summers-heat-is-only-the-beginning). Here’s some of what he writes.

“This week, a brutal heat wave is shattering heat records in Europe. But it’s worth recalling however that last summer the same thing happened in Asia: China, Japan, and Korea suffered their hottest summers on record in 2025, the World Meteorological Organization noted in a new report. Now it’s France’s turn. And maybe Belgium, Spain, and Britain’s as well. As global warming driven mainly by burning fossil fuels continues to intensify, scientists say that record breaking heat will become increasingly frequent throughout the world.

“Temperatures in France this week have been the hottest ever recorded, exceeding 44 degrees Celsius (112 degrees Fahrenheit) on June 23. French authorities placed more than half the country on ‘red alert’ and warned that the extreme heat would continue for days to come, Agence France-Presse reported. The Guardian quoted the French health minister explaining that ‘many people are going to suffer, because bodies suffer from an accumulation of high temperatures.’”

Hersgaard continues. “The science is unequivocal: Until fossil fuels are phased out, global temperatures will keep going up and up and up. Though not much discussed these days, what our civilization decides to do about that is among the most consequential questions of our time.”

Record Heat Waves Are Preview of Our Future on a Warming Planet

Writer David Wallace-Wells was interviewed on Democracy Now on this topic

(https://www.democracynow.2026/7/6/david_wallace_wells_climate_heat_wave). He is a New York Times opinion writer and a columnist for The New York Times Magazine.

Host Amy Goodman opens with unsettling news.

AMY GOODMAN:

“This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, as we turn now to the record-breaking heat wave that scorched the northeastern United States over July Fourth weekend.

“At least 25 people are dead in New Jersey due to extreme heat and humidity after a massive heat dome settled over the eastern half of the U.S., bringing triple-digit temperatures, disrupting travel and prompting emergency measures for millions of people. Many of those who died were found in homes with no air conditioning, on the street and in park cars, according to officials in New Jersey.

“More than 185 million people — more than half of U.S. residents — were under heat alerts over the weekend, with extreme weather forcing the cancellation of Independence Day events in states from Alabama to Connecticut. Severe weather forced the cancellation of the Great American State Fair, a two-hour evacuation of the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and delayed President Trump’s Fourth of July speech. Here in New York area, the heat wave shattered records dating back nearly 60 years. Central Park reached 100 degrees, subway stations registered even higher temperatures, while 17,000 customers lost power. This weekend’s North American heat wave follows a record-shattering European heat wave that’s already been blamed for thousands of heat-related deaths across Spain, France and

Germany.

“Climate scientists say the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the primary cause of global warming and the reason why heat waves are becoming longer, hotter and more frequent.”

Excerpts from the interview

——————————————–

AMY GOODMAN: For more on the extreme weather here and around the world, we’re joined in studio by David Wallace-Wells, New York Times opinion writer, columnist for The New York Times Magazine, his recent piece headlined ‘We Need to Retrofit the Planet. The Heat Wave Proves It.’ He’s also author of the book The Uninhabitable Earth.

“Welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us, David. Start off by talking about what’s happening here. And if you can put it in the context of climate change?

“DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, the planet is now warmer than it has ever been in modern human history, basically since the agricultural revolution 10,000 or 12,000 years ago. We’re already outside the window of temperatures that enclose the entire history of human civilization. And we are warming more rapidly than the planet has ever warmed in its history, including periods where warming produced deaths of 50 to 90% of all life on Earth.

“So, we’re running a pretty radical experiment, and things are changing pretty rapidly. Just over the last couple of decades, we’ve seen the pace of warming accelerate, and we’ve seen the chances of heat waves like the one that we saw in Europe grow as much as a hundredfold more likely. So, just since the 2003 heat wave, which killed tens of thousands of people in Europe, a heat wave like the one that we just saw in Europe has gotten a hundred times more likely.

“There are a lot of questions about why we haven’t prepared adequately for these heat waves, and we should be asking them and doing more to protect ourselves in the future. But I think the baseline observation that we have to make is that things are moving incredibly quickly, and that makes it incredibly hard for us to change our ways.”

“In the U.S., we’re not producing nearly as much of that technology. We are building out our green energy infrastructure relatively quickly, but we’re not doing nearly enough to bring emissions down into line with our targets. And that means that we’re heading up against some really terrifying climate thresholds.

AMY GOODMAN: What has the Trump administration done?

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: “They’ve gone to war with clean energy and tried to undermine it everywhere that they could. They’ve literally bought off wind projects, so that those will not go forward. They’ve taken an ax to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which was essentially a climate bill, and tried to undo all of the tax incentives that were in it to subsidize clean energy. And they’ve done very little to help the problem of interconnection and the grid, which are so essential to the buildout of clean energy in America.

“They haven’t totally succeeded. Last year, 90-plus percent of new energy infrastructure was green. But they’re doing everything they can to put their hand on the needle and change the direction of policy and make America more like a petrostate and less like the electrostate that China is trying to be.

AMY GOODMAN: So, how can the U.S. be a leader on green energy?

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, we need to spend considerably more particularly on these technologies, the grid and interconnection, so that the developers who are willing and ready to build out solar farms, in particular, can build them quickly and can install them and make them — make that power available to American citizens. When you saw something like that happen in Australia over the last couple of years, they’re now offering their citizens three hours of free electricity every single day, because the buildout has been rapid and the infrastructure alongside it has been so successful.

….

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: One of the more optimistic things that’s happened in the last few years, though, is that countries in the Global South, across sub-Saharan Africa, across South Asia, have actually taken decarbonization into their own hands and started building out new green energy capacity on their own, even without help from the Global North, which was long assumed to be necessary. They’ve done that in part because that technology is so cheap, coming from China, that they’re able to afford it themselves. And you’ve seen some of the most rapid uptake of solar power, in particular, in the world’s developing countries, much faster even than in the Global North, where we expected it to be the fastest.

AMY GOODMAN: The Manhattan Project developed the U.S. atomic bomb. What would a Manhattan Project for renewable energy look like?

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS: Well, the interesting thing about the energy sector is that we have the technology that we need to get a lot more progress than we have right now. Solar and wind and batteries are most of the solution. They’re not the entire solution, but geothermal needs to be promoted considerably more.

The things that I’m more worried about are heavy industry and agriculture, which are big parts of the carbon emissions puzzle, which we don’t yet have quite satisfying solutions for. And in fact, some of the things that we thought were going to be quite successful, especially in agriculture, have proven much less useful over the last few years, not panning out like we hoped. So, I think we need considerable R&D in those areas, and money just flowing into the system on the renewable side to make sure that the technology that we have today actually gets implemented at scale and pace.

—————————————

Concluding thoughts

There appears to be no hope on curtailing or reversing global warming as long as Trump is president, the Republican Party retains control of Congress, corporations continue their production and use of fossil fuels, and the public relies on fossil-fuel generated energy. While cleaner energy based on solar, wind, and geothermal, along with the development of new storage batteries, are becoming more available, they still represent only a small percentage of energy sources. Is it too late?

Sleepy Donald and the Misbegotten Iran War

Bob and Arlene Sheak, June 23, 2026

I – Trump’s health

There are questions about his mental and physical health and thus his ability to be President. He rants from his social media platform early in the morning. He tends to fall asleep at his administration’s events.

Jem Bartholomew, considers this issue of Trump’s sleepiness in an article titled “Sleepy Trump” for the Columbia Journalism Review, June 15 2026, and what it reveals about the president’s mental and physical health (https://www.cjr.org/the_medea_today/sleepy-trump-discourse-health-reveal-conceal-oval-office-memorial-day-raskin-tapper-schiller-mtg-php). Here are a few excerpts.

He writes, “Donald Trump has seemed extremely sleepy lately. He appeared to doze in a cabinet meeting, caught forty winks during a meeting in the Oval Office, nodded off at a Memorial Day event, and fell into a light snooze during the NBA finals.”

Here’ are two of several other points Bartholomew makes. One, he writes “you’ve probably seen the footage from a June 4 event on what is being called ‘beautiful, clean coal,’ as Trump’s posture slumps, his eyelids droop, and he raises his eyebrows in what seems like a strained attempt to stay awake and pay attention.” Two, “Dan Diamond of the Washington Post wrote last month that Trump ‘now receives some of the same questions that dogged’ his predecessor, Joe Biden: ‘namely, whether he is mentally and physically fit to perform the duties of commander in chief.’”

II – Trump’s war of choice in Iran

He launched the war with huge bombing attacks without consulting Congress or considering the UN Charter’s views on what makes a war lawful. The Charter says this:

“

The United Nations was established in 1945 to prevent war and promote peace, human rights, and social progress. Its Charter emphasizes that all member states must settle disputes by peaceful means and refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or when acting under Security Council authorization (UN Charter Articles 1 and 2.”

Trump’s war raise questions about the legality of the war he started and his mental state.

Trump believed that the war was necessary to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, although there was no evidence they were doing this or had intentions of building such a weapon. Nonetheless, his assumptions about the upcoming war were justified by Trump’s false beliefs.

He falsely believed it would be an easy war to win, and that Iranian citizens would rise and transform their oppressive government. The number of Iranian casualties did not matter to him. He expected there would be few if any American casualties. He gave little thought to the costs of the war or its domestic economic effects.

The relevance of the Strait of Hormuz was absent in his war impulses.

III – Trump chooses to start the war

The US and Israel launched a full-scale war on Iran on February 28, 2026.

Damian Murphy, Allison McManus, Andrew Miller, critically analyze Trump’s Iran War after the first week of the war, March 5, 2026 (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-case-against-trumps-war-choice-in-iran).

“In starting war with Iran,” they write, “President Trump and his administration have knowingly put service members in harm’s way, inflicted suffering on innocent civilians, and left the American people to bear the financial burden of this needless conflict.”

“President Donald Trump has dragged the United States into a needless war with Iran—and one with no clear end. His war has already exacted a steep human toll: Six American service members are dead, and President Trump has suggested more will follow. At the same time, hundreds of Iranian civilians [soon to be thousands], including children, have been killed in Operation Epic Fury strikes. And for what? The war promises to be a strategic disaster that risks long-term instability, with no clear strategy to mitigate Iran’s incentive for nuclear weaponization or establish a pathway to democracy.

“Who foots the bill for this needless, immoral war? The American taxpayer.” The journalists make their argument in three points. Bear in mind, they are writing this only after a week of the war has transpired.

IV – The reality of the war after the first week

Here are examples of the evidence compiled by Murphy, McManus, and Miller.

The war had already taken a massive human toll

“On March 1, 2026, the U.S. Department of Defense acknowledged that four U.S. Army Reserve soldiers—Capt. Cody A. Khork, Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens, Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor, and Sgt. Declan J. Coady—had been killed in an Iranian drone attack in Kuwait. The death toll has since risen to six U.S. service members, and at least another 18 have been seriously wounded since the start of operations on February 28. Without a doubt, these service men and women—fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters—made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the nation. The deceased soldiers had been assigned ‘to a post with woefully inadequate protection in place, described as a ‘makeshift office space.’ One source put it bluntly, ‘We basically had no drone defeat capability.’”

“While the war has killed many officials in Iran’s brutal regime, the Iranian people—on whose behalf Trump said, at least at one point, that he was engaging in war—have already suffered greatly as well. The Iranian Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) has reported that civilian fatalities exceed 1,000, with more than 180 children among the casualties. One strike on March 1 hit a school for young girls, killing as many as 175 children….”

“As the war continues and Iran expands its retaliatory strikes, casualties in other nations will mount as well. Already, deaths have been reported in Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq, and Oman.”

The war had cost billions already, and the costs would continue to rise every day.

Operation Epic Fury has already cost U.S. taxpayers more than $5 billion in its first few days—a figure that includes the expense of conducting massive missile barrages, repositioning forces, and the loss of three F-15 fighter jets. These costs increase by the day: Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY), who sits on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, has estimated the war costs around $1 billion daily.”

The war has upended global energy markets and risks long-term economic harm

“The war in Iran has also upended global energy markets and created volatility in financial markets. Iran plays a disproportionately large role in the global energy system, not only because of its massive crude oil and natural gas production but because of its strategic position along the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of the world’s oil, one-fifth of the world’s natural gas, and one-third of global trade in urea—the most widely used nitrogen fertilizer—usually pass through the choke point daily.”

The war subverts American democracy

“Trump has presented neither a logical nor a compelling rationale for a campaign that entails serious risks to American service members, U.S. interests, and innocent civilians across the Middle East. This is not only a strategic failure; the president’s refusal to come to Congress to authorize this war plainly undermines the U.S. constitution. Trump’s contempt for Congress’ constitutionally mandated role denies the American people a meaningful say in decisions of war and peace—particularly egregious when 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the war. This is not just a violation of process but a subversion of democracy itself: Members of Congress are the people’s representatives, giving voice to the full diversity of interests and perspectives in the country.”

V – Recent estimates of the costs of the war

The Costs of the Iran War: Thousands of Lives and Billions of Dollars

Edward Wong and Aruni Soni report recently on tentative agreements and the costs of the Iran War, pointing out that it has already taken thousand of live and led to billions in costs (https://www.nytimes/com/2026/06/19/us/politics/iran-war-costs-death.html).

There seems to have been US-Iranian agreement to cease hostilities on June 17.

“The war against Iran lasted just over 15 weeks before a preliminary U.S.-Iranian peace deal was reached this week. But the human and economic toll mounted rapidly, with consequences far beyond the region.”

Trump looked for a ceasefire after pressure mounted at home and abroad.

Wong and Soni write, “Facing pressure at home and abroad, President Trump announced on Monday that he and Vice President JD Vance had electronically signed a document the previous day with the Iranians formally ending the war. The conflict began on Feb. 28 when the United States and Israel attacked Iran.

“On Wednesday, the president signed the agreement again in France at the Palace of Versailles, where an ill-fated treaty was concluded to end World War I more than a century ago.

The costs of the war to the United States, estimated at $132 billion overall, are still being tallied as a 60-day period for further negotiations begins. Here is what we know, according to the report by Wong and Soni.

Death Toll

“About 3,500 Iranians have been killed in the war, according to an Iranian government agency. Israel says 26 Israelis have been killed. Thousands of people in both countries have been injured.

“The U.S. military says 13 of its members have been killed.”

“In the deadliest known civilian casualty incident, a U.S. missile strike demolished an Iranian school, killing at least 175 people on the first day of the war, according to Iranian officials.”

Financial Costs

“Iran’s economy was already deeply troubled before the war. But now it is free fall. Prices for food and other basic goods have surged, and daily life is a struggle.

“The scale of devastation has been great, with hundreds of schools and health care facilities damaged or destroyed in the war, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, the country’s primary humanitarian relief organization.

“For U.S. taxpayers and consumers, the cost of the war is at least $132 billion, according to Moody’s Analytics. That factors in military spending, rising energy and commodity prices and interest rates, said Mark Zandi, the company’s chief economist.

“A top Pentagon official told Congress last month that the cost had risen to around $29 billion for the military. That estimate did not include the price of repairing about a dozen U.S. bases in the region damaged by Iranian attacks.”

“The costs of repair and maintenance, as well as keeping carrier strike groups at sea, also need to be factored in. ‘It costs a lot of money to just keep everyone and all this apparatus deployed there,’ said Linda Bilmes, a public finance expert and senior lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School. She added that the replacement costs of the enormous number of munitions that the U.S. military has expended will be much higher than the original purchasing costs.

Energy Prices

“Americans have paid roughly $60 billion more for gasoline and diesel since the conflict began as a result of higher prices, according to an Iran War Energy Cost Tracker from Brown University. That’s about an extra $460 per household. That number is still rising.

“When the United States and Israel started the war with Iran, Americans were paying, on average, $2.98 a gallon at the pump, according to AAA, a non-profit organization of motor clubs.

“Since then, gasoline prices have spiked regularly and are now around $4 a gallon.

“Oil prices surged when the Iranian military attacked some commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway to and from the energy producers of the Middle East. That effectively shut down the strait and disrupted the global flow of petroleum. Crude oil is the main ingredient for gasoline.”

The global benchmark for crude oil has dropped since a peace agreement framework was announced on Monday. It is currently near $80 a barrel. At one point in March, prices climbed to around $120 a barrel.

“Those high fuel prices have trickled down the chain and inflated many other costs tied to fuel, like airline fares and the transportation of commodities and manufactured goods.”

VI – US Voters have disapproved of this war and continue to do so

Julia Conley reports that “Poll Shows US Voters Have Disapproved of Trump’s War of Choice Against Iran from Beginning to End,” June 19, 2026 (https://www.commondreams.org/news/pollint-on-iran-war).

“Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll taken from June 11-17 said they were unhappy with President Donald Trump’s handling of issues with Iran, which he began attacking as he insisted the country must not have enriched uranium that can be used to make a nuclear weapon and that the US must ‘destroy their missiles.’”

“The poll was in line with an analysis of eight reputable surveys that were taken in early March, just days after Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began the attacks—a decision Secretary of State Marco Rubio said was made by the Trump administration because the White House believed Iran would retaliate against bombing that Israel was intent on starting.

“Those surveys found that just 38% of voters approved of the military strikes against Iran in the days after they began, with polling expert G. Elliott Morris warning that “wars only get less popular” over time.”

“In the poll released Friday, 53% of voters said the US military action against Iran has gone “too far,” slightly down from 59% who said so in March. The poll was taken as the US released a memorandum of understanding with Iran and as the president indicated a retreat from the central demands he had made regarding Israel’s missiles and nuclear program, which Iranian officials have maintained is not for military purposes.

VII – Trump lost the war

Tom Nichols maintains that Trump has lost the war and he doesn’t realize it, The Atlantic, June 16, 2026 (https://www.theatlantic.com/2026/06/trump-G7-comments),

Nichols reports that the “president’s comments at the G7 summit revealed that he doesn’t understand the war he started—or the words that come out of his own mouth.”

“Donald Trump arrived in France yesterday for this morning’s G7 summit and promptly confirmed America’s capitulation to Iran. Instead of merely repeating the outlines of what looks to be a terrible peace deal, however, Trump made a series of statements so bizarre, even by his usual standards, that they raise the question of whether the president still understands the words that come out of his own mouth.

“The president began with a classic Trumpian move, daring his listeners to forget today what they knew yesterday. Just this winter, Trump had promised the Iranian people that the tyrants who ruled them would be gone. But now? ‘I never cared about regime change,’ he told reporters, waving away his failure to achieve a primary strategic goal by denying that it had ever been a goal at all.

“Things got a little weirder, however, when he described the Iranians who have stepped in to replace the regime leaders killed in U.S. strikes: ‘We’re dealing with people that I think are very rational people. And they were nice to deal with.’

“‘They were strong people, smart people.’ he added. And then he dropped this remarkable claim: ‘They’re not radicalized, and they’re, you know, looking to help their country.’”

“Trump’s description of the current regime in Tehran as a bunch of swell guys was brewed in a heavy-duty vat of wishful thinking. It’s an extreme version of Trump’s tendency, when he’s been outplayed by powerful enemies, to describe his opponents as basically reasonable people.”

“Trump fared no better talking about the Iranian nuclear program. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium exists largely because Trump unilaterally called off U.S. participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 agreement that was meant to prevent Iran from enriching uranium beyond minimal levels for civilian uses. After the U.S. and Israeli attacks last year, and yet more pounding during Operation Epic Fury, that uranium remains underground, either hidden in storage or buried beneath tons of rubble; some of it can likely be recovered and enriched for military uses. Trump has said, repeatedly, that Iran must hand it over.

“Until today.

“‘I call it the nuclear dust, their enriched material, right?’ Trump said. (Why he calls it this remains a mystery.) Does America still insist on its removal from Iran?

Well, maybe.

Trump said.

“‘You could make the case ‘Why are you even bothering?’ cause it’s not really valuable. It’s, you know, it’s probably half a million dollars’ worth. It’s not very valuable stuff, but I think psychologically we wanna get it.”

Nichols continues. “A regime that was once the epitome of evil is now a reasonable partner; nuclear material that once represented an existential threat to America might now sit in Iran forever; Syria and Iran and Israel and Lebanon will now do things that they would never do, just because he wants them to.

“None of this makes any sense, except as desperate rationalizations from a man who cannot face facts and admit defeat. Trump has always had a tenuous relationship with the truth, but evidence is mounting that on the most important questions of war and peace, the president of the United States seems to be losing his grip on reality itself.”

VIII – How Does Trump’s Deal with Iran Compare to Obama’s?

Ephrat Livni delves into this issue (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/world-middleeast/trump-obama-deals.html).

“President Trump has repeatedly said that any deal he made with Iran to curtail its nuclear program would be different from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the Obama administration entered into in 2015.” Livni writes that Trump is “not wrong.”

Livni continues. “The current memorandum of understanding is a general agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, putting off talks about Iran’s nuclear program for a subsequent round of negotiations. The Obama-era agreement, sometimes referred to as the J.C.P.O.A. or the Iran nuclear deal, was extremely detailed.” How do they compare at this point?

1 – “Who’s involved: The Obama-era deal involved Iran and the United States, and also China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the European Union. It addressed Iran’s nuclear program.

“The recently negotiated memorandum of understanding is an arrangement between Washington and Tehran that addresses the conflict that began with the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran in late February. It refers to the countries’ ‘allies in the current war’ but does not name them. It mentions Lebanon’s sovereignty, but not Israel or Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group that renewed fighting with Israel in March after the attack on Iran.

2 – Comprehensiveness –

“Iran’s nuclear program: The 2015 Iran nuclear deal was a comprehensive plan to address Iranian nuclear ambitions and ensure the country’s program was ‘exclusively peaceful.’ It was 18 pages long and accompanied by dozens of pages of additional details about specific elements of the nuclear program, monitoring, sanctions relief and more.

“The current memo is 14 paragraphs long. It states that Iran commits to not having a nuclear weapon but leaves all details to further negotiations in the 60 days following finalization, a time period that can be extended if both sides agree.”

3 – Sanctions on Iran. Sanctions relief for Iran: The J.C.P.O.A. [Obama’s deal] tied sanctions relief for Iran to specific goals related to its nuclear program. In the current agreement, the United States is explicitly committing to ‘terminate all types of sanctions’ against Iran, on ‘an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal.’ The J.C.P.O.A., meanwhile, was a final arrangement.”

4 – Other financial relief. “The current agreement commits the United States and regional partners to develop a plan for a fund with a minimum of $300 billion for reconstruction in Iran — an issue that was not on the table during previous negotiations, as they were not prompted by war. It also states that the United States will grant any required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for financial transactions related to the fund. Trump administration officials have said Iran will only receive these financial benefits and sanctions relief if it complies with its obligations under the agreements, but does not specify what precisely it must do to qualify for reconstruction funds.”

Concluding thoughts

This war is Trump’s war. The casualties, the economic devastation of Iran, the global turmoil and suffering, the extensive harms to the domestic economy, the humiliating US capitulation to Iran, all are attributable to Trump’s decision to start this war. It reflects his stupidity and narcissism. Now he has turned his attention to vanity projects in his hope of creating a legacy worth honoring, of subverting elections, and surrounding himself with cronies who are completely subservient to his presidential power.

Fortunately, his popularity is low and the democratic opposition to him is growing.

Trump is stupidly consistent in his disregard of science and global warming. We all pay the price

Bob Sheak, June 7, 2026

Introduction

It has long been established by experts and scientists that the carbon dioxide in the air and the resultant increase in global temperatures is produced overwhelmingly by fossil fuels. Even some of the major emitters of these climate pollutants have acknowledged as much, though most have not. The Harvard Gazette, among many others, confirmed this (Exxon scientists predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy,’ Harvard researchers say — Harvard Gazette). Here’s are excerpts from the Gazette.

“Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published…in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.”

“In ‘Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,’ researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades.”

Katie Surma at Inside Climate News also confirms the involvement of the fossil fuel corporations in their knowledge of the impact of their emissions in a May 14, 2025 report based on the internal company documents and other public records that “outline the fossil fuel industry’s decade-long campaign to mislead the public and avoid paying for their products’ harms (How the World’s Most Powerful Corporations Have Fought Accountability for Climate Change – Inside Climate News).

Such evidence does not sway the climate crisis deniers like Trump who ardently contend that there is no climate crisis and what we need to do is go ahead and maximize the production of coal, oil and gas, the principal sources of global warming.

Trump the denier

Trump not only has long disregarded any evidence but continues to claim that there is no climate crisis; it’s “fake,” as he said in a speech at the United Nation (Trump called climate change a ‘con job’ at the United Nations. Here are the facts and context | PBS News). This article is authored by Melina Walling and Seth Borenstein. Here is more of what they report.

Trump said. “‘This ‘climate change,’ it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.’”

Trump is totally wrong

Surma points out, “But the world U.S. President Donald Trump described in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday didn’t match the one many world leaders in the audience are contending with. Nor did it align with what scientists have long been observing.

——

Unsurprisingly, Trump wants to fund the expansion of coal production

Maxine Joselow and Brad Plumer report on Trump’s offer of Funds for the first new U.S. coal plants in 13 Years (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/climate/trump-coal-plants-funding.html).

They write that the president announced a total of $700 million in federal money to reinvigorate the domestic coal industry, which has been in decline for decades.

“Of the new funding, $425 million would be used to upgrade and extend the life of 12 coal plants that otherwise might have closed in the coming years. To unlock this money, Mr. Trump invoked a Korean War-era law called the Defense Production Act, which gives the president sweeping powers to bolster domestic industries deemed essential to national security.

“The Energy Department separately announced that it would invest up to $350 million in coal projects, including funding for two companies to build the first new coal plants in the United States since 2013, one in Alaska and the other in West Virginia. Some money would also go to a power company that wants to restart a shuttered coal plant in Maryland.

“The money for the new coal plants would come from funds that Congress originally designated for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from polluting industries.”

Joselow and Plumer continue. “In recent months, the Energy Department has ordered units at five aging coal plants to stay open instead of shutting down as planned. And Mr. Trump has directed the Defense Department to buy more electricity from coal plants to power military installations nationwide.”

The president revealed his ignorance when on Thursday, June 4, “he said the move would help lower consumers’ energy bills, though experts say coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than gas plants and renewable energy.”

Unlike what the President and other deniers claim, there is no such thing as “clean coal.” “Experts say the phrase ‘clean coal’ is misleading, noting that coal plants produce more harmful air pollutants and planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions than do gas plants, solar panels and wind turbines. Burning coal emits mercury and other heavy metals linked to an array of health problems.”

“Despite the unfavorable economics of coal,” Joselow and Plumer write, “some proponents think the fuel could make a comeback if electricity demand from data centers continues to rise and the Environmental Protection Agency continues to relax pollution regulations that have significantly increased costs for operators.”

“Mr. Trump on Thursday also announced $75 million for a new coal export terminal in Oakland, Calif. City officials have tried for nearly a decade to block the terminal from being built, but courts have repeatedly sided with the developer, and the project is now set to move forward.”

—–

Unprecedented run of very hot weather

Bob Berwyn reports on a recent climate report that shows an “unprecedented run of global heat, Jan 13, 2026 (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13012026/multiple-reports-show-2025-extreme-global-heat”) …. Here’s some of what he writes.

“Several annual international climate reports released Tuesday indicate that relentless human-caused warming continued in 2025, especially in the oceans and at the poles.

“For the third year in a row, Earth’s average temperature ran close to 1.5 degrees Celsius hotter than the climate that sustained human civilizations as the 20th century began, before fossil-fuel pollution started damaging the atmosphere.

“The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service report released Tuesday ranked 2025 as the third-warmest year on record, just a hair cooler than 2023 and within striking distance of 2024, the hottest year on record. Together, the past three years have averaged more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, the first time any three-year stretch has crossed that threshold.”

‘Exceeding a three-year average of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is a milestone none of us wished to reach,” said Mauro Facchini, head of earth observation at the European Commission’s directorate general for defense industry and space.”

“At today’s pace of emissions, Copernicus scientists said, the world is on track to hit the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree Celsius limit permanently by the end of this decade, sooner than expected when the deal was signed.”

—–

NBC News reports on March 27, 2026, that the most recent evidence documents that Arctic sea ice hits its lowest winter level as unprecedented heat smashes records all over Earth

(https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change-artic-sea-hits-lowest-winter-level-unprecedented-heat-records-rcna265501).

“The sea ice is crucial to Earth’s climate because without it reflecting sunlight, more heat energy goes into the oceans.

“Vital Arctic sea ice shrank to tie its lowest measured level for the winter, the season when ice grows, as a warming Earth shattered records across the continents.

“Arctic sea ice levels, especially in the summer, are crucial to Earth’s climate because without the ice reflecting sunlight, more heat energy goes into the oceans. Ice of all kinds around the poles acts as Earth’s refrigerator. Wildlife, such as polar bears and seals, also depend on sea ice. Lack of sea ice in the Arctic creates new shipping routes and in doing so causes geopolitical disruptions, making once-ignored places such as Greenland, more desirable.

“The shrinking Arctic sea ice was announced Thursday as temperatures broke March heat records across the United States, all over Mexico, in Australia, across Northern Africa and through parts of Northern Europe. Climatologist and weather historian Maximiliano Herrera, who tracks extreme temperatures, called the extreme March temperatures ‘by far the most extreme heat event in world climatic history” and said on social media that the next few days would be “much worse.’

Sixteen states broke March temperature records in the past week or so, said weather historian Christ Burt. Twenty-seven locations had temperatures in the past week high enough to tie or surpass the hottest April day on record, including St. Louis, meteorologists said. Mexico has had thousands of records shattered, some of them warmer than the hottest May temperatures, but that’s nothing compared with what’s happening in Asia, where “dozens of thousands of monthly records” were smashed by 30 to 35 degrees (17 to 19 degrees Celsius) margins, Herrera said.”

Steady decline of sea ice

Each year Arctic sea ice grows over the cold winter and shrinks in the heat of the summer. This year the growth was so small that its peak, before starting to shrink, measured 5.52 million square miles (14.29 million square kilometers). That’s slightly smaller than last year’s 5.53 million square miles (14.31 million square kilometers), but the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which does the measuring, considers those two figures so close that it’s a tie.

This year’s sea ice area was about 525,000 square miles (1.36 million square kilometers) lower than the 1981 to 2010 winter average peak. That’s about twice the size of Texas.

“‘As temperatures have warmed and are continuing to warm, especially in the polar region, there is less opportunity to grow ice and it’s gonna tend to, on average, be less,’ said data center senior scientist Walt Meier. ‘It’s not like we are seeing a regime shift or anything. It’s more of a steady decline in the winter and at the maximum. And it also gives us a head start on the summer melt season. We’re starting from a lower number.”

Why it’s important

“The summer melt season — which precedes a September measurement known as the Arctic sea ice minimum — is ‘really the critical time,’ Meier said. One reason is that when there’s less white ice reflecting the strong summer sun, the oceans can absorb more heat. And when that happens, the Arctic warms closer to temperatures further south and atmospheric pressure changes. A leading theory — that is still controversial — says those Arctic changes then alter the movement and shape of the jet stream, which moves weather west to east and contributes to extreme weather bursts, he said.”

“On the other end of the planet, Antarctic sea ice is heavily affected by local weather and ocean factors. In February, Antarctica hit its annual low point and while it was smaller than the 30-year average, it was nowhere near the record low levels of the past three years, Meier said.”

—–

Trump wants to gag scientists

Bill McKibben writes on Trump’s efforts to “gag American Scientists When We Need The Most,” Common Dreams, June 1, 2026

(https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-silences-science). He coins the term “scilencing” to capture this situation. Here’s some of what he writes.

In late May, “the White House announced plans for a major tightening of political control over research grants. Instead of relying on the advice of expert panels as to which research should be funded, the new policy relies on political appointees. McKibben writes, “One or more senior political appointees designated by their agency head must conduct ‘a pre-issuance review’ of all discretionary grants, making sure they follow several principles, including to ‘demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.’

McKibben refers to Jeff Mervis at Science, who interviewed several observers of this Trump policy. Here are examples.

“‘What OMB [Office of Management and Budget] is proposing is not a reform of grants management,’ Elizabeth Ginexi, a former program officer at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), writes in a Substack post. ‘It is a vehicle for complete political control of science… over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.’ Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a leading critic of the Trump administration’s research policies, calls the proposal ‘a dystopian move that woulddestroy what remains of merit-based review.’”

McKibben points out, “The science the Trump administration really hates is climate science, because it threatens the ‘energy dominance’ that the White House has made its basic foreign and economic policy, not to mention the profits of the fossil fuel industry that has been such an attentive donor.”

He refers to the view of John Timmer, who wrote at Ars Technica:

“‘The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn’t in the ‘national interest.’ The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.”

Some good news

McKibben sees some good news. Renewables in the form of solar panels and wind energy continue to grow. There is also progress in batteries that store energy when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. He refers to sources that document that “2025…was the first year the world installed more than a hundred gigawatts of battery storage, up 48% from the year before, and expected to grow another 46% this year.”

He continues. “And the possibilities are everywhere. Canary Media’s Julian Spector wrote last week, a new global report shows that these so-called ‘firm renewables’ (wind and sun coupled with batteries).”

“IRENA [International Renewable Energy Agency] looked at 252 solar projects that went online there in 2024 and found that many of them could be augmented with extra solar capacity and batteries to deliver power cheaper than the $100-per-megawatt-hour benchmark for new gas-fired plants. Almost all the modeled solar-battery plants could beat that cost for firm clean power 90% of the time; even at the higher reliability threshold of 99%, nearly half the projects remained competitive, and the lowest cost was $46 per megawatt-hour.”

—–

Is there time to save the planet?

C.J. Polychroniou argues that “a just transition is still within reach, June 1,2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/despite-climate-policy-setbacks-a-just-transition-is-still-within-reach). C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Here are excerpts from his article.

The present situation is dire

The evidence for rapid human-caused climate change keeps piling up, yet the world continues to flood the atmosphere with greenhouse gases amid a political backlash against the struggle for a future free of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, which means humans are continuing to make the climate crisis worse. Global average temperatures are expected to stay at record levels for the 2026-2030 period, exceeding preindustrial averages by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. As global warming speeds up, events like wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and floods will become more intense, and there will be a substantial increase in premature deaths, with the overwhelming majority occurring in low-and middle-income countries. The climate crisis presents a grave threat to life on Earth, although scientists have now scrapped the worst-case climate scenario on account of the expansion of renewable energy — which means there is still hope.

In the interview that follows, world-renowned economist Robert Pollin talks about the forces resisting green transition and highlights the results of a major study he and some of his co-workers at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) produced for advancing a green transition in Michigan. According to Pollin, there are simply no technical or economic considerations preventing Michigan and other U.S. states from achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Pollin is distinguished professor of economics and co-director of PERI at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.”

The example of Michigan

Pollin is the lead author of a new and massive study on how the state of Michigan may become carbon neutral by 2050.

“In a 2022 report from Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) called the MI Healthy Climate Plan, the state established, as its central climate target, for Michigan to achieve carbon neutrality — i.e., net zero emissions — by 2050. Reaching zero emissions in Michigan by 2050 is a realistic target as long as the state maintains its commitment to achieve it. As a starting point, it is a major statement in itself that the state government set this emissions reduction target and is actually still taking it seriously. This isn’t easy under Trump 2.0.

“At present, about 85 percent of all energy consumed in Michigan’s economy comes from burning oil, coal and natural gas. The challenge is obvious: how to go from 85 percent dependence on fossil fuel energy sources as of now to zero, or near zero, fossil fuel consumption in 24 years.

“Our study works out a plan to accomplish this. The central feature of our plan is to build a clean energy infrastructure to supplant the existing fossil fuel–dominant infrastructure. Solar and wind power will be the state’s primary new energy sources, operating at a greatly upgraded level of energy efficiency. Geothermal and low-emissions bioenergy will be supplemental renewable sources. Michigan will also need to create large-scale battery storage capacity to account for the fact that solar and wind are intermittent energy sources — i.e., the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow all day everywhere.

“We estimate that the costs of these clean energy investments — including all renewables, efficiency upgrades, and battery storage — at about 2 percent of Michigan’s overall spending (GDP) per year every year between now and 2050. For 2027, this total spending would amount to about $15 billion. That’s obviously real money. But it is still only 2 percent of total spending in Michigan. That means that 98 percent of spending in the state can still go to everything else besides its green transition project.

“It is also critical to emphasize that, according to our estimates, these clean energy investments will generate an average of between 85,0000-100,000 jobs per year between 2027-2050 within Michigan, equal to about 2 percent of Michigan’s current workforce. These will include jobs across all occupations in the state, including, for example, roofers, machinists, accountants, office managers and assistants, truck drivers, and wind turbine engineers. This level of job creation will continue as long as the state continues to invest 2 percent of its GDP on clean energy projects.

A major component of the study revolves around a just transition for fossil fuel workers,, which “has to be a first-order priority of the overall green transition project, as the late, great labor and environmental leader Tony Mazzocchi first emphasized decades ago. This is a matter of simple economic justice. But without a generous just transition program fully embedded in the green transition project, it is also fair to expect that a large share of the workers and communities staring at major losses in their living standards will become green transition opponents. They then become fertile targets for exactly the type of brazen political opportunism practiced by Trump and company. Trump, for example, recently anointed himself the champion of the miners in ‘America’s beautiful clean coal industry.’”

“In Michigan, there are now about 21,000 people employed in the full range of fossil fuel-based industries, amounting to only 0.5 percent of the state’s current workforce. Virtually all of these jobs will be phased out between now and 2050 under the statewide green transition. If we assume that the phase-out proceeds in more or less steady increments between 2026 and 2050, and we also take account of workers voluntarily retiring over the next 25 years, we end up with only about 350 workers getting laid off every year. This compares with our lower-end estimate that about 85,000 jobs will be created in Michigan as long as the state invests 2 percent of GDP per year on clean energy projects.

“Still, each of the 350 workers who will be displaced every year needs to receive generous transitional support. This should include pension guarantees, guaranteed re-employment at their previous pay levels, as well as job retraining and relocation support as needed. We estimate that a generous transitional support package for all these workers would cost about $45 million per year. That is less than 0.01 percent of overall 2025 statewide spending in Michigan.”

“For Michigan, an additional major concern is the impact on employment of automobile manufacturing transitioning from building internal combustion engine powered autos to battery electric vehicles (EVs). As of 2025, total auto manufacturing employment in Michigan was about 49,000 jobs, i.e., more than double the employment level for all fossil fuel sector jobs in the state. It is possible that this transition to EV manufacturing could expand employment levels and improve conditions for auto workers within Michigan. But whether this happens will depend on the effectiveness of industrial policies to locate EV manufacturing operations, battery production in particular, within Michigan. More broadly, these trends demonstrate the imperative of a commitment to full employment policies, along with rising wages and expanded benefits, as a centerpiece of a U.S. economy-wide Green New Deal.”

——

Concluding thoughts

Trump’s policies are exacerbating the climate crisis. He is committed to expanding fossil fuels, including coal, the dirtiest of them. Most Republicans in Congress support him. He continues to have the support of much of the MAGA movement, though his overall poll ratings are very low. The ratings have little to do with the climate crisis and a lot to do with high prices due to Trump’s foolhardy Iran War and his tariffs. There is a lot of commentary in the news about his tendency to fall asleep at cabinet meetings and other events. He spends a lot of time bragging about his “ballroom” and other vanity projects. This only reveals his rampant narcissism. Meanwhile, the planet gets hotter.

Some reasons why the country will be better off without Trump

Bob Sheak

Arlene Sheak edits

Introduction

Historians have ranked Trump as the worst present ever. According to Factually, “recent expert surveys commonly place Donald Trump and James Buchanan among the lowest-rated presidents… with Trump ranked last in several 2024 specialist polls (https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/worst-us-president-historians-ranking-6854f1).

There is considerable evidence that documents the appropriateness of this ranking. Here are some examples.

#1 – A president of “lost opportunities.” E.J. Dionne, Jr., writes on Trump’s “lost opportunities” (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/16/opinion/trump-lost-opportunities.html). Mr. Dionne is a contributing Opinion writer. He has done damage “to the rule of law, to the United States’ standing in the world, to the constraints on corruption and self-dealing we once took for granted.”

He offers a general summary in two paragraphs of his detailed article.

“He has wasted the nation’s time and attention span on a festival of personal obsessions: tariffs, Greenland, a ballroom, the outcome of the 2020 election and an ill-considered war. In doing so, he created a public agenda entirely out of sync with the problems our nation needs to solve. He also blinded himself to the ways in which he might have made his presidency more successful and more popular.

“We are in a moment when we need to build — more housing and better ways to address child care, elder care and health systems. The country also needs to think ahead: about the disruptive impact of artificial intelligence, the need for alternatives to fossil fuels, the imperative of strengthening rather than wrecking alliances and of curbing inequality that is rising unsustainably and leaving nearly 60 percent of consumer spending in the hands of just the top 20 percent of us

———-

#2 – Trump’s “staggering corruption”

Trump filed a suit back in January, saying the IRS should have done more to prevent the leak of his tax returns during the 2020 presidential campaign. He initially asked for $10 billion in recompence.

Rep. Jamie Raskin comments in a segment of Democracy Now that Trump modified has monetary claim but still is able to get a bundle of taxpayer money channeled to one of his outlets (https://www.democracynow.org/2026/5/18/anti-corruption). Raskin points out, Trump did manage to bilk the taxpayers in what he describes as “staggering corruption.”

Raskin says that “Donald Trump on Monday dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over a leak of his personal and business tax records, a bizarre case of a sitting president suing his own government and essentially acting as both plaintiff and defendant. This comes amid reports that Trump’s Department of Justice was considering settling the case in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate victims of so-called weaponization of the DOJ under the Biden and Obama administrations. Trump allies who participated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol could file claims and be compensated.

“They want a $1.77 billion slush fund, which comes to a million dollars a head in terms of Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the insurrectionists, with $100 million left over of taxpayer money to spread around in different ways,” says Congressmember Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who spoke with Democracy Now! shortly before news broke of Trump dropping the IRS lawsuit.

Congressmember Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is also a constitutional law scholar, calls the proposal an illegal “political slush fund.” Last week, Congressmembers Raskin and Senator Adam Schiff introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act to curb the president’s profiteering and corruption.

Here are parts of Raskin’s Democracy Now interview.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Sure. Well, the $1.7 billion political slush fund in the Department of Justice may take the cake in terms of being the most thoroughly corrupt movement of the Trump administration, after the billions of dollars that they’ve been getting through the crypto schemes and the foreign governments.

“But, so, let’s go back to the beginning. The $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS is completely bogus. It’s empty. It’s vacuous. There’s nothing to it. There was a private contractor who leaked reports of Donald Trump’s tax returns, that Trump had promised to make public. Like every other president had done, he said, ‘I’m going to release my tax returns.’ Then he said he wouldn’t. The IRS didn’t do anything, but this private contractor released some of the details. And he’s in prison. He went to jail for it. There’s no private right of action under the statute, and it’s happened to lots of people.

“So, the idea that it’s $10 billion that he’s going to order the secretary of the Treasury to order the IRS chief to give to him is ridiculous. There’s just nothing there. So, there’s nothing to trade, but then they traded that mythical $10 billion they claimed to be owed, for dropping real criminal investigations into all of the corruption, or some of the corruption, that the Trump family is engaged in, and then also for the creation of this $1.7 billion slush fund.

“Well, there are 1,600 people that he’s pardoned, and they want a $1.7 billion slush fund, which comes to a million dollars a head in terms of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the insurrectionists, with $100 million left over of taxpayer money to spread around in different ways. Congress never voted to appropriate that money. We control the power to spend. We never created that, and we never would.”

“So, they’re using the judgment fund of the United States, which is for valid court verdicts against the United States or valid court settlements, to simply confer money on their private political militia, their street-fighting militia, which went to battle for them on January 6, 2021. And what do you know? Right before this election, they want to shower these people with a million dollars a head. I mean, it’s just a — it’s an outrage, and it’s a scandal. It’s also unconstitutional, because the 14th Amendment says in Section 4 that no money shall go to pay for insurrection or rebellion. That, of course, was in the wake of the Civil War, but it’s written in general terms. Basically, they’re paying his insurrectionary army.”

———-

#3 – Trump’s Iran policies have put many Americans under economic stress and threaten more instability in the country

Tony Romm and Ben Casselman address this issue (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/17/business/for-trump-soaring-prices-test-voters-fiances-and-patience.html).

Romm and Casselman remind readers that “President Trump promised at his inauguration to ‘bring prices down.’” That was in January 2025. But then “the White House would forge ahead with an agenda that has sent inflation roaring back, testing the patience — and the finances — of a cost-wary American electorate once again,” as consumer prices rise” “outpacing workers’ wages.”

As a result, they continued, “Americans are racking up more debt. Families are saving less. And a key measure of consumer confidence dipped to an all-time low this month. The anxiety has bled into recent political polls, which have registered broad public disapproval of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy.

“At the heart of matter is the war with Iran, which sent the average gallon of gasoline to about $4.52 nationally, according to AAA. That is a more than 40 percent jump from a year ago, an uptick that has cut across the global economy, affecting everything from the cost of workers’ daily commutes to the prices of goods at grocery stores.

“Yet the president has largely dismissed those recent signals, telling reporters at one point last week: ‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.’”

The dire situation could help Democrats in the November elections.

Romm and Casselman point out, “The jump in fuel costs is only the latest blow for American families, who have suffered through years of rising prices, high interest rates and a softening labor market — as well as much longer-running concerns about the affordability of housing, childcare and other essentials.”

———-

#4 – Trump wants more money for the Pentagon and the Iran War.

Nick Turse reports on Secretary of War Hegseth request for more money for the Iran War (https://theintercept.co,/2026/05/12/hegseth-pentagon-budget-defense-iran-war-cost).

Turse refers to this central point: “War Secretary Pete Hegseth was on Capitol Hill Tuesday to defend the Pentagon’s $1.5 trillion budget request.” This is despite a “ceasefire” that has been in “effect” for more than a month. The largest request in history.

Turse continues. “Two weeks ago, the Pentagon claimed the war had cost $25 billion, a figure that analysts said was likely a gross undercount. In testimony before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, the Department of War’s comptroller, Jay Hurst, said the cost of the war has risen ‘closer to $29 billion because of the “repair and replacement of equipment’ and ‘general operational costs’ of keeping troops in the Middle East.’ But experts referred to by Turse were even skeptical of this revised count.”

They now want $350 billion through reconciliation and $1.15 trillion in the base budget.

“Hegseth said the Pentagon was prepared to reignite hostilities with Iran. ‘We have a plan to escalate, if necessary; we have a plan to retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets,’ the secretary testified, declining to say more in the public hearing.”

Bear in mind that this has always been an unnecessary war.

———-

#5 – Trump’s spends on a myriad vanity projects: Examples

Collin McDonough provides us with a list of Trump’s vanity projects, May 5, 2026 (https://momentrumadvocacy.substack.com/p/trumps-vanity-projects). Here’s what he found, admitting that it is not a complete list.

“The new Republican Senate Judiciary Committee budget would allocate $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to ‘security’ upgrades for Trump’s attempt to remake the White House’s East Wing.”

Bottom of Form

· $400 million for the Trump ballroom (the initial estimate was $150-200 million paid for by private donors).

· $1 billion in changes to the Washington Commanders’ NFL stadium.

· $377 million request in his executive budget recommendation for this year and $174 million for next year to do various White House renovations.

· $100 million for the DC archway.

· $17.4 million for fountain renovations (which were estimated to cost $3.3 million when Biden was going to do the same thing last year).

· $2 million in disgusting changes to the reflecting pool.

· $2 million for changes to the Rose Garden.

· $1.75 million for White House furniture and rugs.

McDonough figures the cost of these projects add up to “almost $2.7 billion.” He also notes that Trump plans to put his name on half of these. There are better ways to spend this money. Here are a few examples.

· A month of SNAP funding for almost 14.3 million Americans—a third of the total population enrolled in the program.

· Half of the annual funding for WIC, which is used by 41% of infants in the US.

· A quarter of the annual funding for national free breakfast and lunch for school students.

This is a time when food programs for children and families are being cut. There are also cuts in Medicaid with 300 hospitals poised to close across the nation.

———-

#6 – Trump promotes fossil fuels, including coal, despite their toxic impacts on human health

As Coal Rebounds, More Toxic Mercury is In the Air

Irena Hwang and Hiroko Tabuchi report that the production of more coal puts more toxic mercury in the air (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/11/climate/as-coal-rebounds-more-mercury-a-potent-toxin-in-in-the-air.html). Irena Hwang is a data reporter at The Times, using computational tools to uncover hidden stories and illuminate the news. Irena Hwang covers pollution and the environment for The Times. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years in Tokyo and New York.

Here is some of what they write.

“Coal-fired power plants across the country released more mercury last year as power demand surged, reversing a yearslong downward trend in the emissions of a toxic metal that impairs brain development.

“Mercury emissions from coal-burning plants increased by roughly 9 percent in 2025, compared with a year earlier, totaling more than 4,800 pounds, according to a New York Times analysis of data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“At the same time, the Trump administration launched a series of moves that experts say may make those emissions climb even higher this year and beyond.

“The administration has encouraged the burning of more coal, which emits more carbon dioxide and other pollutants than other fossil fuels, while also blocking tighter pollution controls on coal-burning plants that were supposed to take effect by 2027. It has directed the Pentagon to buy more coal-powered electricity and reopened millions of acres of federal land to mining while working to stymie nonpolluting energy, like wind and solar power.”

“The rise in mercury ‘adds to the growing evidence that, as the administration has made a significant effort to bring back coal, it is making us sicker,’ said Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who has also analyzed the data.

“Public health experts say savings for the industry ignore the economic impact of additional pollution, including health care costs associated with cardiovascular disease and developmental problems in children; researchers at Harvard had calculated that keeping stricter limits on mercury pollution from lignite plants alone would have resulted in $200 million a year in public health benefits in just the first year.”

———-

#7 – McKibben dismisses Trump’s unscientific and uninformed desire to eliminate “wind power”

Bill Mckibben provide evidence to support this Trump position, May 13 2026

(https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-war-on-wind’). Bill McKibben is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org and ThirdAct.org. His most recent book is “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?.”

McKibben makes his main point, “the administration has stopped all approvals on wind farms across the country.” He continues, “As Katherine Krawczyk explains, for 15 years wind farms have applied to the Department of Defense (DOD) where:

they’re supposed to undergo a “timely, transparent, and repeatable process to evaluate potential impacts” to national security and military operations. It’s a routine that has spanned presidencies, including the first Trump administration, and that typically revolves around making sure turbines don’t interfere with radars or federal airspace.

“This has always been routine, until last summer when it became… impossible. Pete Hegseth’s DOD simply stopped replying, and didn’t explain why till last month when it sent a letter to developers saying it was ‘reevaluating how it reviews wind projects national security impacts.’ Somewhere between 165 and 250 big projects are in limbo, and that’s obviously the point: Not only does it screw up their financing, it means they may not get done in time to qualify for what tax credits are left from the Biden Inflation Reduction Act.”

McKibben continues. “That this is stupid goes without saying. Those blocked projects constitute… about 30 gigawatts of cheap clean energy at a time when we desperately need it. But it also goes without saying that the blockage serves two purposes. One is to artificially increase demand for fossil fuel (and the other Trump-favored power sources, like the expensive array of nuclear reactors whose development the government is currently generously funding). The other is to serve his febrile rage at the wind farm built off his Scottish golf course all those years ago. A policy that feeds both his appetite for corruption and supplies his narcissistic hunger—well, that’s a twofer that can’t be missed. Hegseth may have no idea how to win the war in Iran, but he knows how to win favor from dear leader.”

McKibben offers a summary of his rebuttal. “Of course, it means indulging in a huge number of lies, from President Donald Trump’s claim that wind power is the most expensive energy on Earth (actually, second-cheapest, right behind solar) to his claim that it causes cancer (1 death in 5 on this planet comes from breathing the combustion byproducts of fossil fuel) to his claim that though the Chinese build and sell wind turbines they don’t actually use them. If he glances out the window of Qatar Force One on this week’s trip to China he’ll be forced to recant that one: The Chinese actually lead the world in producing not just wind turbines but wind energy.”

China is way ahead. “Last year, China installed three times as much wind power capacity as the rest of the world combined, even as its turbine exports jumped. The global industry’s center of gravity has shifted decisively: All of the world’s six largest wind turbine manufacturers are Chinese, displacing once-dominant European firms and companies like General Electric.”

Technology over Trump. “Fewer turbines, spaced further apart, and equipped with modern bird-detection technology such as IndentiFlight, should reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass going forward.”

“Turbines will be equipped with individual AI paired cameras to detect the presence of avian species which would trigger feathering/shut-off of specific turbines.”

A Stanford University study

McKibben cites Justin Gerdes, who reports, “this kind of repowering could happen at every wind farm across the country:

“‘By replacing aging turbines with modern technology at existing sites, the United States could more than double its current onshore wind capacity and electricity generation without requiring new land,’write the authors of a Stanford University study published in March.”

———

#8 – Trump Is Making America Uninsured Again

Sasha Abramsky makes this argument on Truthout, May 16, 2026

(https://truthout.org/articles/trump-is-making-america-uninsured-again).

Sasha Abramsky is a freelance journalist and a part-time lecturer at the University of California at Davis. Abramsky’s latest book, American Carnage: How Trump, Musk, and DOGE Butchered the US Government, is available for pre-order now and will be released in January. His work has appeared in numerous publications,

He opens his article with these statements:

“The GOP is heading into the midterms as the party that made health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans.

“In 2025, the Trump administration successfully pushed Congress to enact nearly $1 trillion in health care cuts over the coming decade, which the Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated would result in 10 million people losing health coverage by 2034. More recently, it has blocked any and all efforts to extend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credit subsidies for people buying insurance on the state exchanges. In demanding that the GOP leadership in Congress prevent at all costs a continuation of the expanded ACA tax credits, Donald Trump intimated that his administration was on the verge of proposing a better and more affordable health care reform to replace the ACA system.

Abramsky continues. “Nothing of that nature has materialized. Instead, the administration’s health reforms have been shockingly small-bore — a handful of measures to lower the costs of prescription drugs, more incentives for consumers to create health savings accounts, a rollback of regulations on catastrophic coverage plans — thus, making it easier for younger, healthier, patients to buy junk insurance, but doing nothing for those who are older or suffer from chronic conditions.

“Over the past months, even these baby steps have stalled out, with the GOP seemingly and inexplicably resigned to the fact that it will be heading into the midterm elections as the party that is putting health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans. Early in the Iran war, Trump was caught saying that the federal government could no longer afford its massive Medicare commitments now that the country was engaged in an expensive overseas conflict, and it would have to roll back responsibility for paying for this bedrock safety net program onto the states.”Bottom of Form

“Predictably, following Congress’s failure to renew the expanded tax credits, in the first months of 2026 state exchanges calculated that up to 2 million people dropped coverage, and millions more shifted to lower cost plans with far higher deductibles, some in the $10,000 a year range.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump’s presidency is costly and harmful. It reflects anti-democratic priorities. It reveals the true values of this self-serving, oppressive and incompetent president. We can only work for an alternative to the Republicans who both laud and fear him. Right now, as Trump’s popularity declines, it seems the Democrats will continue to do well in upcoming elections, if people vote.