SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
So much for First Lady Elmo Musk's proud boast of "our Hammer of Justice." In mere days, a "fraction of a Scaramucci," icky, scandal-plagued, Neanderthal-browed "MAGA bomb-thrower" Matt Gaetz crashed and burned, giving up his deeply errant bid to wreak vengeful havoc on law and order. He was felled by yet another sexual assault charge, a resolute free press, a Senate finally facing an unholy bridge too far, and a "spectacular error of judgment" by a clown drunk on ill-gotten power. May he make many more.
Gaetz' unseemly fall was a long time coming. A crass sycophant and provocateur despised even by his despicable GOP cohorts, he'd been trailed for years by sordid rumors and reports of his sex-and-drug-fueled exploits; he even helpfully documented them by making colleagues on the House floor look at nude photos of his victims and listen to lewd tales of his crushing Viagra and Red Bull to (ewww) "go all night." He long denied claims he'd paid for sex, but acknowledged he'd given money to various "girlfriends." For three years, the DOJ investigated him for allegations he trafficked over state lines and had sex with a 17-year-old girl; the probe shut down in 2023 without charges, but enough lurid stories kept floating around the House Ethics Committee launched their own investigation. Last week, after the House deadlocked on releasing its reportedly damning findings, MAGA Mike spent an evening at Mar-A-Hell-go before babbling that releasing them would be "a terrible breach of protocol and tradition and the spirit of the rule."
Anyway, by then his new overlord had nominated Gaetz to get revenge against the DOJ for being mean to both of them by running it into the ground; he also abruptly resigned from the House, which thus no longer had jurisdiction over him. But his "ridiculous, horrible and dangerous" nomination was universally panned - one response: "Oh for fuck's sake" - not just because he's known as a pedophile, reprobate, scumbag and creep but because he is so wildly unqualified for the job Elon Musk thought he was doing Gaetz a favor by arguing he had "three critical assets...a big brain, a spine of steel and an axe to grind." He's also "barely a lawyer," having spent less than three years as a junior associate at a small litigation firm, where at one point he filed a "stunty" and failed lawsuit against the city of Valparaiso over noise from overhead fighter jets. In 2019, new to the House, he was disciplined by the state bar for a threatening tweet that was "unprofessional, reckless, insensitive, and demonstrated poor judgment.”.
This week, with even his own party balking at the insane notion of an A.G. Gaetz and calling out the "abhorrent" job he's done in Congress, Trump was reportedly strong-arming Senate Repubs, threatening if they voted against Gaetz "you're buying yourself a primary, and there's a guy named Musk who will finance it." Classy. His co-conspirator Shady Vance also "sherpa-ed" Gaetz around the Capitol to talk to senators; even (also classy) George Santos showed up to condemn the "witch hunt" against Gaetz and vow to "scream" at opponents through their doors if he had to. During his pitch to Senators, Gaetz evidently tried to ignore the issue of drug-and-sex-fueled parties and their possible crimes - "There's no there there" - but did plead, "Just give me a fair shake.” Denying he was seeking retribution, he said he was "not going to go there and indict Liz Cheney, have storm troopers bust through the studio door at MSNBC, and arrest Anthony Fauci in my first week." (His second week, then, anything goes?)
Still, noted one sage, "The brazenness worked until it didn’t." And fast. Thursday at 11:30 a.m., CNN reached out to Gaetz for comment on a scoop they said they were about to publish: The woman who had sex with Gaetz in 2017 when she was 17 years old told the House Ethics Committee she in fact had two sexual encounters with him at one party; she testified to both the second, previously unreported encounter, which included an adult women, and the first in a deposition as part of a related lawsuit. CNN told Gaetz they would publish the story at 12:30 p.m. He posted he was withdrawing his nomination at 12:24. Trump had allegedly told Gaetz that morning he didn't have enough votes to pass; in his announcement, Gaetz said he was stepping down because his confirmation was “unfairly becoming a distraction" to Trump's "critical work," even though "the momentum was strong" and he'd had "excellent meetings" with Senators who gave him "thoughtful feedback," aka, "They told me to eat shit and die."
“Matt has a wonderful future," Trump wrote, "and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do," most likely paying more teenage girls for sex. GOP pols, citing "hell no" people they knew, seemed relieved at finding "the most humane way" out of a dilemma from which effluvium is still issuing. The New York Times reported investigators have established "a web" of suspicious Venmo payments - at least 10 totalling over $10,000 - between Gaetz, his "associates," and the women they paid. They even drew a surreal diagram, with names redacted, Gaetz a blue blur in the center, and his reasons for sending money: "Being my friend," "Joy,” "Being awesome," "Love you," "Just because." There's also an FBI investigation of a computer hack involving his former bestie doing time for trafficking, and a report Gaetz used the PayPal account of his Cuban adopted "son" Nestor, 19, though he also called Nestor "a local student" and "my helper." At the time, he was thus using a 16-year-old's money to pay for sex with a 17-year-old.
After the fact, there was little sympathy for the devil. There were snarky headlines - "Gaetz Forced To Pull Out After Sex Scandal Explodes" - musings about Kevin McCarthy living it up, reports of DOJ staff celebrating, jokes he resigned 'cause "his nomination got too old" or "he found out he'd be working with J.D. Vance not at a JV dance," wonder at the speed of his fall - "Not even one Scaramucci" - gratitude for "a Thanksgiving miracle" and "a good first punch." It's unclear if his resignation will apply to the new Congress; given the House ethics report still looms, many suggest Gaetz "just fucked himself out of government." Cognizant of "the deep bench of MAGA freaks," people speculated about the next choice: Hannibal Lecter, Michael Flynn, P. Diddy, Satan, another doctor, Pepper or Mengele, and, "Under a bridge somewhere, Rudy Giuliani hoping for a phone call." Some urged, "Now do the filthy hands guy," fellow loyal, vindictive, unqualified sexual predator and Christo-fascist Pete Hegseth, embroiled in his own foul muck.
Some speculate Trump's fail was in fact part of a "sacrifical lamb" plan to now inflict someone worse on us, but a former White House official argues Trump isn't smart enough to play "that sort of three-dimensional chess...More often than not he's just eating the pieces." Others warn we must insist on the Senate retaining its power to advise and consent in the face of so many dangers - Hegseth, Gabbard, RFK Jr., and God knows what unknown catastrophes await. Still, "The miasma of scandal that trailed Gaetz was too odorous...Finally, in a supposedly post-scandal era in which 'nothing matters', something mattered." The refusal to rubber-stamp a debacle, one wrote, is "a hopeful sign that a modicum of sanity persists in DC." Also, lest we forget, Thomas Jefferson is still right: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." “Donald Trump just took his first step backward," wrote former GOP consultant Steve Schmidt. "He will take many more soon....Do Not Be Afraid.”
Update: Trump's new nominee is staunch, lock-her-up bootlicker and Florida A.G. Pam Bondi. More of the same, presumably without the sex and drugs.
Matt Gaetz' intricate network of drugs, sex, women and "associates"Screenshot from New York Times
Thousands of climate justice advocates took to the streets of London on Saturday to demand the U.K. government "end its reliance on fossil fuels, commit to paying climate reparations, and end its complicity in the genocide in Gaza."
Organizers said more than 60 groups—including Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Amnesty International U.K., Palestine Solidarity Campaign, War on Want, and Just Stop Oil—took part in the March for Global Climate Justice. The demonstration took place amid yet another shambolic United Nations Climate Change Conference and as Israeli forces continue a war on Gaza that U.N. experts this week called "consistent with the characteristics of genocide."
More than two dozen associated protests were held in cities and towns across Britain and Ireland, including Dublin, Edinburgh, Manchester, and Sheffield. Over 150 actions around the world are planned for what organizers are calling a Global Day of Action for Climate Justice on Saturday.
"Thousands of us united today in a historic mobilization on the streets of London, across Great Britain, and worldwide to demand an end to the era of fossil fuels and an end to the genocide in Gaza," Climate Justice Coalition national coordinator Angus O'Brien said in a statement.
"The issues we face are global, and so is our response," O'Brien added. "We won't stop until political leaders divest from war and destruction—and invest in a just, ecological, and equitable transition."
Lauren MacDonald, the lead campaigner at Stop Rosebank, said: "Every day we are witnessing the worsening effects of climate change as they creep closer and closer to home. All this while governments insist on pandering to the demands of mega-polluters in an endless cycle of ignorance that endangers us all."
"Oil money has been linked to violence throughout history—and this is no different now," MacDonald continued. "Even the Rosebank oil field here in the U.K. will see £253 million in revenue flow towards a company that has been flagged by the U.N. for human rights violations in Palestine."
Earlier this week, green groups including Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth Palestine/PENGON, and Tipping Point U.K. highlighted how fossil fuel companies including Britain's BP "enable and profit from Israel's genocide in Gaza" and perpetuate "a long history of the industry's complicity in mass atrocities worldwide."
Joanna Warrington, a campaigner at Fossil Free London—a group known for its bold direct action protests—said Saturday that "in gleaming London offices, fossil fuel giants like BP line their pockets while our planet burns and millions suffer."
"Every day, they stop at nothing to maximize their profits, fueling genocide, corrupting politics, and pushing our climate closer to collapse," she continued. "We are marching today to demand that the U.K. government breaks free from the grip of mega polluters, stands up to their relentless greed, and stops enabling the violence and destruction they profit from."
"Another world is not just possible—it's essential," Warrington added, "and it starts with holding fossil fuel corporations accountable."
MacDonald asserted that "if we want to maintain a liveable climate, and sever the toxic links between fossil fuels and atrocities across the globe, we must do everything we can to make a rapid and fair transition away from oil and gas."
Ahead of the G20 Leader's Summit, scheduled to take place over two days next week in Rio de Janeiro, international economists on Tuesday were calling on economic ministers to take an historic step toward reducing global inequality by approving a tax on extreme wealth.
"Tax the rich" has been a rallying cry among economic justice advocates for years, but with the richest 1% of people now owning more wealth than the bottom 95%, some of the world's top economists and finance ministers in recent months have joined the call for a fair taxation system that demands the wealthiest households pay their fair share.
Jenny Ricks, general secretary of the Fight Equality Alliance (FIA), pointed out that taxing the richest people in the world would barely dent their fortunes—but for millions of people across the Global South, it could mean the difference between whether healthcare and public services are provided to them or not.
"There are 16 people in the world who—if 99% of their wealth vanished overnight—would still be billionaires," said Ricks. "We must tax the rich, end austerity, and cancel debt to ensure healthcare, education, and other essential public services for billions in the Global South. A growing movement of millions across the world is tired of the G20 upholding a broken system. A first step forward would be supporting an ambitious global deal to tax the superrich."
The five richest men in the world have doubled their wealth since 2020, while 60% of people have become poorer. The richest 1.5% of people in the world now control nearly half the world's wealth.
FIA warned that with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump scheduled to take office in January, global finance ministers must take action to rein in the "era of the billionaire" before leaders like Trump lavish their billionaire donors with more tax breaks, decimating public services.
"Countries are on track to lose $4.8 trillion in tax to tax havens over the next 10 years," said Nathalie Beghin, co-director of the Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos in Brazil. "Such unchecked tax evasion perpetuates inequality and undermines the foundation of sustainable economic development. At this historic moment, G20 leaders must demand the changes needed to transform an outdated, unfair system that's no longer fit for purpose—if it ever was."
Beghin, an economist, called on G20 leaders to support the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC), which would "tackle illicit financial flows, rediscuss inefficient tax expenditures, [and] tax transnationals and high net worth individuals."
"If Brazil could tax its superrich, as a consequence of a global commitment, the country could stop austerity measures and implement social, environmental and adaptation policies to fight hunger, poverty, and climate change," said Beghin. "Making big companies and very wealthy individuals pay their fair share is also fundamental to tackle inequality."
At a meeting in Rio de Janeiro in July, global finance ministers agreed on the need to develop a global tax system in which the richest people in the world pay a higher tax rate—despite the protests of the United States delegation.
Zinnia Quirós Chacón, a campaigner with Oxfam International, called the upcoming G20 meeting "a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make history."
"For the first time ever, world leaders are close to agreeing on a global plan to tax the superrich," she said.
Oxfam and other groups participating in the Say It With Me Now campaign—an initiative aimed at showing the widespread support for a global wealth tax—posted a video on social media showing supporters around the world asking the G20 ministers to take decisive action.
"Tax the superrich and make the world a better place for everyone," said the supporters in the video. "They won't even notice anyway."
Critics slammed the Republican-controlled U.S. House Ethics Committee on Wednesday after the panel decided against releasing a report on sexual misconduct allegations against former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, who has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as attorney general.
Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters that "there was not an agreement by the committee to release the report," while Rep. Susan Wild (D-Penn.) clarified that "a vote was taken."
Julie Tsirkin, congressional correspondent for NBC News, said Wild "suggested all Democrats voted yes, all Republicans voted no."
Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, called on the committee to "release the full report immediately" and warned that "failing to make it public would be a betrayal of the public trust and a dangerous precedent for our democracy."
Committee investigators have been examining allegations that Gaetz paid to have sex with a 17-year-old at parties while he was serving in Congress.
The investigators obtained records showing that Gaetz paid more than $10,000 to two women who testified before the committee. The records showed 27 PayPal and Venmo transfers from Gaetz between July 2017 and January 2019, some of which were allegedly payments for sex.
The allegations were also part of an FBI investigation into whether Gaetz was involved in sex trafficking of a minor. That probe was dropped without charges.
"The American people deserve transparency from their elected officials, especially when it comes to evaluating the nominee to become our nation’s chief law enforcement officer," said Harvey. "The Senate can't fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent on the president's nominees without access to the report and all evidence of the numerous allegations of Gaetz's sexual misconduct."
Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress hours after Trump announced his nomination. The resignation meant Gaetz was no longer under the congressional committee's jurisdiction, and several lawmakers suggested the former Florida congressman aimed to avoid the release of the report. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has pushed for the report to remain confidential considering Gaetz's resignation.
As the House committee was weighing whether to release the documents, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee met with Gaetz ahead of his confirmation process. Vice President-elect JD Vance (R-Ohio) suggested on social media as the meetings were taking place that senators should support Trump's nomination, saying the party rode the president-elect's "coattails" to a Senate and House majority.
"He deserves a cabinet that is loyal to the agenda he was elected to implement," Vance said.
The House Ethics Committee report could still be released, either by someone who leaks it to the media or a lawmaker who could read it into the congressional record—an act that could lead to censure or expulsion from Congress.
As it stands, podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen said, "the House Ethics Committee Republicans are now complicit in trying to bury a potentially 'highly damaging' report into Matt Gaetz."
"Trump says jump, Republicans say 'how high,'" he said, "even if it means shielding sex trafficking of a minor."
The ACLU on Thursday sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that bipartisan legislation which backers claim would combat antisemitism on university campuses would actually be an affront to free speech protections and censor legitimate criticism of the Israeli government as it carries out atrocities in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and Lebanon.
The group's letter comes two weeks after Axiosreported that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "recently promised Jewish leaders that he would try later this year to pass" the House-approved Antisemitism Awareness Act, or S. 4127.
"Instead of addressing antisemitism on campus, this misguided legislation would punish protected political speech," said ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff, who signed the letter with Christopher Anders, director of democracy and technology.
"At a time when civil rights enforcement on campus could not be more critical, this bill risks politicizing these vital protections by censoring legitimate political speech that criticizes the Israeli government," Leventoff warned. "The right to criticize government actions is the most fundamental protection provided by the First Amendment—and this includes the actions of foreign governments. The Senate must continue to block this bill and protect free speech."
"It would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism."
The letter highlights that "federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities. S. 4127 is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism."
As Israeli forces—armed by the Biden administration and U.S. Congress—have bombed and starved Palestinians in Gaza over the past 13 months, students colleges and universities across the United States have held protests urging their education institutions and government to divest from the assault, which is the subject of a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
Some campus administrations—under pressure from Zionists in Congress—have called in law enforcement to violently crack down on protesters and enacted new policies intended to limit anti-genocide demonstrations by students and faculty.
"The ACLU does not take a position on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but it does staunchly defend the right of those in the United States to speak out on domestic and international political matters," the organization emphasized. "The ability to criticize governments and their policies is a critical component of our democracy."
As the letter explains:
This bill directs the Department of Education to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of "antisemitism" into consideration when determining whether alleged harassment was motivated by antisemitic intent and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance, including in higher education. The federal government itself has interpreted Title VI to prohibit harassment or discrimination against Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs as well as others when that discrimination is based on the group's actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. These existing protections are critically important, particularly in the current environment.
The IHRA working definition, however, is overbroad. It equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination. Enshrining this definition into regulation would chill the exercise of First Amendment rights and risk undermining the Department of Education’s legitimate and important efforts to combat discrimination. Criticism of Israel and its policies is political speech, squarely protected by the First Amendment.
"The IHRA definition of antisemitism is also unconstitutional," the letter continues, citing a case about Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's executive order directing the state's higher education institutions to craft policies based on the controversial language.
The letter points out that even "the lead author of the original IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has himself opposed the application of this definition to campus speech, noting that codifying this definition would lead campus administrators to 'fear lawsuits when outside groups complain about anti-Israel expression, and the university doesn't punish, stop, or denounce it.'"
The ACLU specifically warned that "S. 4127 could result in colleges and universities suppressing a wide variety of speech critical of Israel or in support of Palestinian rights in an effort to avoid investigations by the department and the potential loss of funding, even where such speech is protected and does not qualify as harassment."
"Even where administrators do not take formal action, students and their organizations, faculty, and university staff may be deterred from speaking and organizing on these issues," the group added. The bill would also "likely inspire an increasing number of complaints focused on constitutionally protected criticism of Israel," taking time away from "meritorious" filings.
The Senate majority leader has faced intense pressure to bring the bill to a vote as this session of Congress winds down. Axios noted that Florence Avenue Initiative, a nonprofit that doesn't have to disclose its donors, "has spent about $5 million on an ad campaign blasting Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish lawmaker, for his inaction."
Amid reporting that the Israel Defense Forces is using an artificial intelligence weapons system touted as improving "operator lethality," Jewish Voice for Peace said Israel's use of technological warfare is "nothing new"—but pointed out that the new reports follow the country's signing of "the first global 'safety' AI treaty."
The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, spearheaded by the Council of Europe, was signed by Israel in September, and "claims to be a legal framework governing AI systems to mitigate risks to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law—but the Israeli military is using AI to do precisely the opposite," said JVP.
The Jewish-led advocacy group spoke out after Middle East Eye (MEE)reported that the IDF has been using a weapons system in Gaza that came out of a collaboration between Israeli Weapons Industries and the Indian company Adani Defence & Aerospace.
The AI system, Arbel, was first unveiled at a defense expo in Gandhinagar, Gujarat in October 2022. MEE reported it is capable of turning "machine guns and assault rifles into computerized killing machines," using algorithms to increase Israeli soldiers' chances of hitting targets with accuracy and "efficiency."
The huge death toll in Gaza—which is conservatively estimated to be about 44,000 but which nearly 100 medical professionals estimated to be more than 118,000 last month, based on their experiences in hospitals there—has previously been linked to Israel's use of AI.
As Common Dreams reported in April, an AI machine called Lavender has been used by the IDF to devise "kill lists," with the military deeming 100 civilian deaths for every Hamas official an acceptable error rate. In December, the Israeli outlets +972 Magazine and Local Callreported that another AI machine called Gospel has been used to target dozens of buildings per day.
Defense analysts told MEE that Arbel has likely been used to "carry out the carnage of Palestinians in a more efficient manner in Gaza."
Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist who tracks the use of technological warfare in Gaza and the West Bank, told MEE that as Israel has used numerous AI systems over the past 13 months, "targeting civilians was the point. It was never about just going after Hamas."
"I have spoken to people in Gaza, I have seen the direct human impact of this kind of killing," he told the outlet. "It is horrific."
Research analyst Noah Sylvia of the Royal United Services Institute in London told MEE that the IDF "has demonstrated a disregard for civilian life in Gaza to the point of routinely targeting children with small arms, meaning that Arbel could easily be used to make the killing of civilians, of children, more efficient."
The impact of the AI system depends "on the military's operating procedures and commitment to international humanitarian law," said Sylvia.
Humanitarian groups and human rights experts have said Israel is blatantly disregarding international law with its near-total blockade of aid into Gaza and its attacks—some with U.S. weapons—on civilians infrastructure.
JVP said the IDF's use of Arbel indicates Israel is also violating the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, and noted reports that the military has also used "facial recognition technology and advanced weapons to monitor, silence dissent, cut internet access, and obscure its war crimes."
Marwa Fatafta, Middle East policy and advocacy director for Access Now, warned that Israel's partnering with India—where AI companies reportedly have the sixth-highest AI investments in the world at $7.73 billion—may provide "a new and terrifying blueprint for tech-enabled warfare... this time through Indian-Israel military tech."
"Rarely does a technology stay dormant in one location," Fatafta said. "The lawlessness and impunity in which Israel commits egregious crimes with the use of AI should terrify everyone."
"The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous," said the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
Democrats on the House Budget Committee said Friday that the plan Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined to eliminate spending already appropriated by the U.S. Congress would run afoul of a federal law enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon's impoundment of funds for programs he opposed.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published earlier this week, Musk and Ramaswamy specifically mentioned the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) only to wave it away, arguing it would not hinder their effort to enact sweeping spending cuts as part of the "government efficiency" commission President-elect Donald Trump appointed them to lead.
But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that "the power of the purse rests solely with Congress."
"Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power," the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. "During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system."
"They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, healthcare, and federal law enforcement—all without congressional approval," the Democrats continued. "American families would be forced to pay more for basic necessities, investment in infrastructure and jobs would decline, and our communities would become less safe. Instead of working within the democratic process, Trump and his allies want to sidestep Congress entirely. But the Constitution is clear: only Congress, elected by the people, controls how taxpayer dollars are spent."
"House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."
The fact sheet was released days after Musk and Ramaswamy, both billionaires, offered for the first time a detailed explanation of their plan to pursue large-scale cuts to federal regulations and spending, as well as mass firings of federal employees, in their role as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The pair noted that Trump "has previously suggested" the ICA is unconstitutional and expressed the view that "the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question." The former president appointed half of the court's right-wing supermajority.
"But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Other programs that would be vulnerable if Musk, Ramaswamy, Trump, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who's set to lead a new related House subcommittee—get their way are veterans' healthcare, Head Start, housing assistance, and childcare aid, according toThe Washington Post.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday that "the legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous."
"Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people's elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk," said Boyle. "House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."
“I really believe the situation is very dangerous,” said one Russian politics expert during a week in which the two countries exchanged strikes.
Voices on both sides of the war between Russia and Ukraine have issued ominous statements during a week when the two countries traded escalatory missile strikes.
Russia launched a strike on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro using an experimental, hypersonic missile Thursday, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The attack followed Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory using western-made, long-range missiles.
"This is an escalation," said Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center toldThe New York Times. "I really believe the situation is very dangerous."
Moscow's missile was fired using a conventional warhead but "it could be refitted to certainly carry ... different types of conventional or nuclear warheads," Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh said. Singh also described it as an "intermediate range ballistic missile."
Initial reports from Ukrainian officials said that the strike was an intercontinental ballistic missile, in contrast to Putin's characterization of the missile. According to the Financial Times, officials from Ukraine, Russia, NATO, and the U.S. have offered different exact classifications for the weapon.
Putin, in a televised address, made clear that the move was in response to Ukraine's use of western-made weapons to strike deeper into Russia.
The Ukrainian government had long sought the permission of western governments to use weapons like American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, and U.K.-produced Storm Shadow missiles. The U.S. began supplying the Lockheed Martin-produced ATACMS earlier this year, according to Defense One, but imposed restrictions on their use due to the escalatory implications of Ukraine using them to strike targets far inside Russian territory.
Ukraine launched strikes using both of those weapons this week following a policy shift from the Biden administration allowing their use, which at least one foreign policy expert cautioned was a "needlessly escalatory step."
"From that moment, as we have repeatedly underscored, a regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character," Putin said in his address, according to Reuters.
The comments come days after Putin also codified a change to the country's nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use.
Meanwhile, on the Ukrainian side, the country's former military commander Valery Zaluzhny offered a bleak prognosis of the war earlier this week, saying that he "believe[s] that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun."
The comments were in reference to the fact that Russia is enlisting the help of outside allies, such as North Korea, in its military effort.
Elsewhere, foreign policy experts cautioned against escalatory spiral.
Anatol Lieven, the director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, offered an argument against what he sees as the underlying rationale of allowing Ukraine to attack Russia with U.S. and U.K.-supplied long range missiles.
"The official argument for the ATACMS and Storms Shadows decision is to put Ukraine in a stronger position before peace talks are initiated by Trump," he wrote in a piece published Thursday. "This is a dangerous gamble, because the missiles (which are guided to their targets by U.S. personnel) risk infuriating Russia without giving really critical help to Ukraine."
U.S. intelligence analysts have also warned that granting Ukraine the ability to use U.S., French and U.K.-supplied long-range missiles could prompt forceful retaliation by Russia; additionally, analysts cautioned that the missiles would likely not fundamentally change the course of the war.
In a similar vein to Lieven, Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and Robert Farley, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, argued in the pages of Foreign Policy this week that U.S. policymakers should pursue a negotiated peace for Ukraine, in part because "Ukraine does not have a path to a straightforward victory."
"If Trump makes good on his promise to end the war, supporters of Ukraine must be clear about the principles at stake and be careful not to let maximalist aims foreclose a durable negotiated settlement. We say this with the knowledge of what conceding Ukrainian territory to permanent Russian control could mean, and has already meant, for Ukrainians in those territories," they wrote.
"Global humanitarian needs are rising, fueled by devastating conflicts, more frequent climate disasters, and extensive economic turmoil," said WFP executive director Cindy McCain. "Yet funding is failing to keep pace."
The World Food Program offered a stark warning for the coming year Friday in its assessment of the escalating global hunger crisis: Due to climate catastrophe and violent conflicts around the world, without adequate funding, "2025 will be a year of unrelenting crises" that drive more people into food insecurity and starvation.
In the WFP 2025 Global Outlook, the agency emphasized that protecting more than 100 million people from devastating hunger in the coming year would require a relatively small investment—$16.9 billion, "roughly what the world spends on coffee in just two weeks."
That amount is a fraction of what the world's wealthiest countries—particularly the United States—put toward military spending in a year.
In total, the WFP found that 343 million people in 74 countries are acutely food insecure—a 10% increase from last year.
"Global humanitarian needs are rising, fueled by devastating conflicts, more frequent climate disasters, and extensive economic turmoil. Yet funding is failing to keep pace," said Cindy McCain, WFP executive director.
With $16.9 billion, the WFP said it could assist 123 million people who are most vulnerable to extreme hunger.
Among those are 1.9 million people who "are on the brink of famine," including those in Gaza, where access to food has been decimated in the last 13 months by Israel's near-total humanitarian aid blockade, repeated forced displacements, and U.S.-backed bombardment of the enclave. Many people in Gaza are now eating just one meal per day, and the United Nations this week warned of a "stark increase" in the number of households facing severe hunger in the southern and central parts of the territory.
More than 90% of people in Gaza are now "acutely food insecure," with 16% living in "catastrophic conditions," according to the United Nations.
"We urgently need financial and diplomatic support from the international community: to reverse the rising tide of global needs, and help vulnerable communities build long-term resilience against food insecurity."
People in Haiti and the sub-Saharan African countries of Mali, Sudan, and South Sudan were also identified as being most at risk for extreme hunger, with the region called "ground zero" for the humanitarian crisis.
Over 170 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are "acutely" food insecure, said the WFP. The region "accounts for 50% of WFP's projected funding needs in 2025," driven by climate extremes as well as violent conflicts in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and the Sahel region.
The U.N. Famine Review Committee in August declared that famine had taken hold in a camp where hundreds of thousands of people live in North Darfur, Sudan, after being forcibly displaced by the civil war there.
The U.N. also reported on Thursday that 25.6 million people in the DRC—or 1 in 4—now suffer from "crisis or worse" levels of hunger, driven partially by fighting between armed groups.
"In such a fragile context, the cost of inaction is truly unthinkable," said Peter Musoko, WFP country director and representative for DRC. "Together, we need to work with the government and the humanitarian community to increase resources for this neglected crisis."
Across Asia and the Pacific, WFP said the hunger crisis facing 88 million people is caused largely by "increasingly frequent climate disasters."
In Afghanistan, approximately 12.4 million people faced acute food insecurity last month, linked to the "devastation caused by heavy rainfall and flooding."
The severe impact of Typhoon Yagi in Myanmar led to "even more displacement" and food insecurity, compounding the effects of an escalating civil war, and nearly 6 million people in eastern Bangladesh were also affected by severe flooding this year.
"At WFP, we are dedicated to achieving a world without hunger," said McCain. "But to get there, we urgently need financial and diplomatic support from the international community: to reverse the rising tide of global needs, and help vulnerable communities build long-term resilience against food insecurity."