

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.

Over 100 economists, including Nobel laureate Robert Solow, Branko Milanovic and Dani Rodrik called on Congress today to take action to mitigate the harmful fallout from the recent ruling by Judge Griesa of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that requires Argentina to pay holdout creditors at the same time as the majority of creditors. The letter warns that "The District Court's decision - and especially its injunction that is currently blocking Argentina from making payments to 93 percent of its foreign bondholders -- could cause unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system, as well as to U.S. economic interests, Argentina, and fifteen years of U.S. bi-partisan debt relief policy."
"It's a widely shared opinion among economists that the court's attempt to force Argentina into a default that nobody - not the debtor nor more than 90 percent of creditors - wants, is wrong and damaging," said Mark Weisbrot, economist and Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who helped circulate the letter.
The letter warns that Griesa's decision could "torpedo an existing agreement with those bondholders who chose to negotiate." It also cautions that, since sovereign governments do not have the option of declaring bankruptcy, "the court's ruling would severely hamper the ability of creditors and debtors to conclude an orderly restructuring should a sovereign debt crisis occur. This could have a significant negative impact on the functioning of international financial markets, as the International Monetary Fund has repeatedly warned."
The court's decision "creates a moral hazard," the economists write, since investors will be allowed "to obtain full repayment, no matter how risky the initial investment."
The full letter appears below.
July 31, 2014
Dear Member of Congress,
We note with concern the recent developments in the court case of Argentina vs. NML Capital, etc. The District Court's decision - and especially its injunction that is currently blocking Argentina from making payments to 93 percent of its foreign bondholders -- could cause unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system, as well as to U.S. economic interests, Argentina, and fifteen years of U.S. bi-partisan debt relief policy. We urge you to act now and seek legislative solutions to mitigate the harmful impact of the court's ruling.
For various reasons, governments sometimes find themselves in situations where they cannot continue to service their sovereign debt. This was Argentina's situation at the end of 2001. After years of negotiations, Argentina reached a restructuring agreement with 93 percent of the defaulted bondholders, and has made all agreed-upon payments to them.
The court's decision that Argentina cannot continue to pay the holders of the restructured bonds unless it first pays the plaintiffs mean that any "holdout" creditor can torpedo an existing agreement with those bondholders who chose to negotiate. While individuals and corporations are granted the protection of bankruptcy law, no such mechanism exists for sovereign governments. As such, the court's ruling would severely hamper the ability of creditors and debtors to conclude an orderly restructuring should a sovereign debt crisis occur. This could have a significant negative impact on the functioning of international financial markets, as the International Monetary Fund has repeatedly warned.
Those who invested in Argentine bonds were compensated with high interest rates, to mitigate the risk of default. There are inherent risks when investing in sovereign bonds, but the court's ruling creates a moral hazard, by allowing investors to obtain full repayment, no matter how risky the initial investment.
The plaintiffs in the case purchased Argentine bonds on the secondary market after default, often for less than 20 cents on the dollar. While these actors could have accepted the restructuring and still made a very large profit, they instead have fought a decade-long legal battle, seeking exorbitant profits in excess of 1,000 percent and creating financial uncertainty along the way.
The recent developments will also directly impact the United States and its status as a financial center of the world economy. While much of the developing world's debt is issued under the jurisdiction of New York law and utilizing New York-based financial institutions, the court's ruling will make it more likely for sovereign governments to seek alternate locations to issue debt. Britain and Belgium, for example, have already passed legislation aimed at preventing this type of behavior from "holdout" creditors.
In addition, the court has put restrictions on New York banks, preventing them from distributing regularly scheduled interest payments to holders of the restructured bonds. Already, banks have faced lawsuits from investors, creating greater uncertainty for U.S.-based financial institutions.
Argentina has expressed a willingness to negotiate, and has recently reached agreements with the Paris Club as well as claims by international investors.
We hope that you will look for legislative solutions to prevent this court decision, or similar rulings, from causing unnecessary harm.
Sincerely,
Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics, 1987, MIT Professor of Economics, emeritus Dani Rodrik, Albert O. Hirschman Professor in the school of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey Branko Milanovic, Luxembourg Income Study Center, the Graduate Center CUNY, former Lead Economist in the World Bank's research department |
Andrew Allimadi, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs |
Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland |
Eileen Applebaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Mariano Arana, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento |
Leonardo Asta, Universita degli Studi di Padova |
Venkatesh Athreya, Bharathidasan University |
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
William Barclay, Chicago Political Economy Group |
Jairo Alonso Bautista, Universidad Santo Tomas |
Gunseli Berik, University of Utah |
Alexandra Bernasek, Colorado State University |
Cyrus Bina, University of Minnesota (Morris Campus) |
Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute |
Peter Bohmer, The Evergreen State College |
Korkut Boratav, Turkish Social Science Association |
Elissa Braunstein, Colorado State University |
Jorge BUZAGLO, University of Goteburg |
Jim Campen, Americans for Fairness in Lending |
Carlos A. Carrasco, University of the Basque Country |
Sergio Cesaratto, University of Siena |
Kyung-Sup Chang, Seoul National University |
Kimberly Christensen, SUNY/Purchase College |
Michael Cohen, New School for Social Research |
Brendan Cushing - Daniels, Gettysburg College |
Omar Dahi, Hampshire College |
Carlo D'Ippoliti, University of Rome |
Peter Dorman, Evergreen State College |
Amitava Dutt, University of Notre Dame |
Dirk Ehnts, University of Oldenburg |
Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
Susan Ettner, University of California, Los Angeles |
Jeffrey Faux, Economic Policy Institute |
Massoud Fazeli, Hofstra University |
Andrew Fischer, International Institute of Social Studies |
Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard Kennedy School |
Roberto Frenkel, CEDES Argentina |
Kevin Gallagher, Boston University |
Chris Georges, Hamilton College |
Reza Ghorashi, Richard Stockton College |
Jayati Ghosh, JNU New Delhi and Ideas |
David Gold, New School University |
Neva Goodwin, Tufts University |
Maria Florencia Granato, Corporacion Andina de Fomento |
Martin Hart-Landsberg, Lewis and Clark |
Conrad Herold, Hofstra University |
P. Sai-wing Ho, University of Denver |
Andreas Hoth |
Gustavo Indart, University of Toronto |
Joseph Joyce, Wellesley College |
J K Kapler, University of Massachusetts Boston |
Martin Khor, South Centre |
Gabriele Koehler |
Andrew Kohen, James Madison University |
Nikoi Kote-Nikoi |
Pramila Krishnan, University of Cambridge |
David Legge, La Trobe University |
Henry Levin, Columbia University |
Mah hui Lim, South Centre |
Rodrigo Lopez-Pablos |
Robert Lynch, Washington College |
Arthur MacEwan, University of Massachusetts Boston |
Jeff Madrick, The Century Foundation |
Cheryl Maranto, Marquette University |
Ann Markusen, University of Minnesota |
Julie Mattahei, Wellesley College |
Kathleen McAfee, San Fransisco State University |
Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont |
Hannah McKinney, Kalamazoo College |
Thomas Michl, Colgate University |
William Milberg, New School for Social Research |
Larry Mishel, Economic Policy Institute |
Mritiunjoy Mohanty, Indian Institute of Management |
Nicolas Moncaut |
Tracy Mott, University of Denver |
Michael Murray, Bates College |
Luiz M Niemeyer, Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo |
Machiko Nissanke, SOAS University of London |
Manfred Nitsch, Free University of Berlin |
Jose Antonio Ocampo, Columbia University |
Carlos Oya, University of London |
Marco Palacios, El Colegio de Mexico |
Antonella Palumbo, Roma Tre University |
Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College |
Mark Paul, University of Massachusetts Amherst |
Lorenzo Pellegrini, International Institute of Social Studies |
Lucia Pittaluga Fonseca, Universidad de la Republica (Uruguay) |
Renee Prendergast, Queen's University- Belfast |
Mark Price, Keystone Research Center |
Alicia Puyana, Facultad Latinoamercana de Ciencias Sociales |
Charles Revier, Colorado State University |
Joseph Ricciardi, Babson College |
Malcolm Robinson, Thomas More College |
Leopoldo Rodriguez, Portland State University |
John Roemer, Yale University |
David Rosnick, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Antonio Savoia, University of Manchester |
John Schmitt, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Stepphanie Seguino, University of Vermont |
Anwar Shaikh, New School for Social Research |
Kannan Srinivasan |
James Stanfield |
Eduardo Strachman |
William K. Tabb, Queens College |
Ezequiel Tacsir, United Nations University |
Philipp Temme, Free University of Berlin |
Frank Thompson, University of Michigan |
Chris Tilly, University of California, Los Angeles |
Mario Tonveronachi, University of Siena |
Lawal Tosin |
Chiwuike Uba, African Heritage Institution |
Bunu Goso Umara |
Leanne Ussher, Queens College, CUNY |
Rolph van der Hoeven, International Institute of Social Studies |
Irene van Staveren, International Institute of Social Studies |
Matias Vernengo, Bucknell University |
David Weiman, Barnard College |
Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research |
Thomas Weisskopf, University of Michigan |
John Willoughby, American University |
Yavuz Yasar, University of Denver |
A. Erinc Yeldan, Yasar University |
Erhan Yildirim, Cukurova University |
Ben Zipperer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst |
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"Instead of draining the swamp, what Donald Trump is doing is he is enriching himself by taking advantage of his position," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "That is not public service."
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on the suspiciously timed trading activity of President Donald Trump, pointing specifically to a large purchase of Nvidia stock just days before his administration approved a sale of the tech giant's chips to China.
During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Warren (D-Mass.) asked Bessent—who has criticized lawmakers for trading stocks—whether he would be willing to hold his boss to the same standard. Last year, Bessent said that if any private citizen traded like members of Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) "would be knocking on their door."
"Should the SEC be knocking on President Trump's door?" Warren asked Bessent, who responded that the Massachusetts Democrat and her congressional colleagues should "lead by example."
"I would like to see the president of the United States lead by example," replied Warren, who supports a ban on congressional stock trading and does not own or trade stocks in individual companies. "Instead of draining the swamp, what Donald Trump is doing is he is enriching himself by taking advantage of his position. That is not public service. He's the one who should lead by example."
Watch the exchange:
Financial disclosures released last month show Trump made more than 3,600 trades during the first three months of 2026, purchasing shares in some companies that his administration is tasked with regulating.
"Many of these trades coincided with favorable regulatory decisions," NOTUS reported. "Trump purchased $1 million to $5 million worth of Nvidia stock on February 10, only a week before Nvidia announced a major computer processing power deal with AI and social media giant Meta. Trump previously purchased $500,000 to $1 million worth of Nvidia stock on January 6, a week before the Commerce Department officially approved the sale of some Nvidia chips to China."
In a video response response to the disclosures, Warren asked: "Was this insider trading? And what else is Trump doing to boost his own stock?"
"The American people deserve to know," said Warren. "What Trump is doing should be illegal. It's long past time that we ban the president and every single lawmaker in this country from trading in stocks. We need to end this corruption now."
"The fact that 'Democratic leadership' hides behind blind quotes is evidence they know how unpopular their opposition is," said one foreign policy critic.
Rep. Delia Ramirez called on her fellow Democrats to "stop making excuses and act" to stop a war in Lebanon, as many refuse to go on the record about whether they'll support a war powers resolution that would halt US military participation in Israel's escalating occupation of the country.
Axios reported on Wednesday that some Democrats are "fuming" about having to take a vote on a resolution introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), which would require the US to end unauthorized military cooperation with Israel in Lebanon within seven days of being passed. The resolution would need Republican support to pass the GOP-controlled House.
Israel's assault on Lebanon, which began in March, has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,500 people. With forced evacuation orders that have led to the expulsion of more than 1.2 million people from their homes, Israel has systematically razed dozens of villages across the south of the country where leaders have expanded their military "combat zone" further north to the Zahrani River.
"Every day that we do not act to stop the assault on Lebanon, we enable another genocide," Ramirez (D-Ill.) said. "The War Powers Resolution is targeted to end Netanyahu and Trump's war crimes."
Anti-war activists supporting Tlaib’s measure—which has 17 Democratic cosponsors—have described it as a way to force Democratic legislators skittish about their party’s growing anger toward Israel to go on the record about where they stand on the country's actions in Lebanon.
One unnamed House Democrat told Axios that "people are not happy" that Tlaib "is making people take this vote."
Citing multiple unnamed sources, the outlet reported that the top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees—Reps. Greg Meeks (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), and Jim Himes (D-Conn.)—are also "on the fence." Another unnamed House Democrat was quoted as saying that their hesitation will likely make others in the party reluctant to jump on board.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said of the two-page resolution that he hadn't "taken a look at it yet."
Axios quotes other anonymous Democrats—one of whom said they are “probably a ‘no’” and another who angrily remarked that the resolution “does nothing to advance a solution.”
The outlet described Democrats’ hesitation as stemming in part from the fact that “there is no indication the US is planning imminent, large-scale ground operations in Lebanon.”
But anti-war groups demanding passage of the resolution have made the point that even without boots on the ground, the US is still intimately involved in Israel's decision-making, with President Donald Trump reportedly giving the "green light" on major operations: These have included Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in March as well as its assault on Beirut in April which killed over 250 people and tanked US negotiations with Iran.
A policy roundup published Tuesday by the Institute for Middle East Understanding, urging the House to pass the resolution, said "Israel is using US-provided weapons and bulldozers to flatten the southern part of the country and to potentially permanently displace 600,000 people. Israel has already used bulldozers, likely provided by the US, to destroy homes and infrastructure in the area."
Aside from continuing to provide direct military aid to Israel, the US is also closely involved in intelligence sharing and coordination that has led to Israeli strikes on specific targets. In a letter sent to Adm. Bradley Cooper last month, some senators raised the possibility that, without approval from Congress, these actions could violate the War Powers Act.
In an email sent to Democratic staffers Tuesday, obtained by Common Dreams, the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy said that Trump's reported intervention to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off strikes on Beirut earlier this week was the latest example demonstrating "how Trump is engaged in an unprecedented, high-level command and coordination over the Israeli offensive in Lebanon" in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The email also pointed out that "a ceasefire in Lebanon is key to peace with Iran" because "Iranian officials have made clear that a full ceasefire in Lebanon is a necessary precondition for diplomacy with the US to advance."
Note the sources who oppose it
"numerous lawmakers and aides"
"one senior House Democrat"
"Dem leadership"
"second senior House Democrat"
"another House Democrat"
"a fourth House Democrat"
ALL anonymous.
Everyone FOR it put their name on their quotes. What does this tell you? https://t.co/XIIHkvF2hF
— Adam Johnson (@adamjohnsonCHI) June 3, 2026
Polling from the Arab American Institute in April found that by about a two-to-one margin, American voters believe the US should do more to pressure Israel to stop bombing and leave southern Lebanon. Sixty-five percent of Democrats said the US should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire, while just 17% said no and 18% were unsure.
Adam Johnson, a journalist and prominent US foreign policy critic, noted on social media that while Ramirez and Tlaib went on the record to voice their support for the measure, the Democrats in opposition were doing so under a shroud of anonymity.
"The fact that 'Democratic leadership' hides behind blind quotes is evidence they know how unpopular their opposition is," he said.
"If...leadership has objections to the Lebanon war powers resolution, then they can openly come out against it," he added. "Instead they're laundering their 'reservations' through anonymous leaks. Curious!"
While the Axios report portrays Tlaib as the cause of a rift in the Democratic Party, Johnson emphasized that "Tlaib's bill is the overwhelming majority position among Dems by almost 4-to-1," adding that "the 'division' is between Dem voters and pro-Israel party leaders."
Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that the Democrats "hedging" on the war powers vote were still taking a side.
"You'd be going on record enabling an unauthorized war that has killed over 3,433 Lebanese people," she said. "US weapons. US intelligence. zero congressional approval."
"The idea of occupation, control, and pushing borders forward has become the core of the Israeli security doctrine," said one Palestinian analyst.
Instead of leaving Gaza as required under the ceasefire deal it signed last October, satellite images published Wednesday by Al Jazeera show that Israel is quietly building dozens of heavily fortified permanent military bases around the entire inner perimeter of the coastal strip, a move critics fear is preparation for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and possible Israeli resettlement.
Al Jazeera's Open Source Unit analyzed satellite data through May 2026 and identified 40 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) outposts inside the Gaza Strip that were all built after the October 2025 ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect, with another base under construction.
Observers say the network of IDF bases inside Gaza is meant to facilitate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stated goal of taking 70% or more of the Palestinian exclave.
Combined with Israel's ever-expanding so-called "yellow line," the satellite imagery reveals at least "a systematic effort to build a sustainable, long-term military infrastructure rather than temporary observation posts," according to Al Jazeera.

As Al Jazeera reported:
The geographical distribution of these 40 military outposts reveals a deliberate strategy of encirclement. The bases, connected by a network of earthen berms, trenches, and internal military roads, tightly surround Palestinian population centres from multiple directions.
This suffocating architecture severely restricts the ability of civilians to move freely or access their lands, particularly in areas abutting the Israeli deployment lines.
The expanding occupation stands in direct violation of the United States-brokered October 2025 ceasefire agreement, which was based on a 21-point peace plan proposed by President Donald Trump. The framework demanded an end to the hostilities, the immediate entry of aid, the disarmament of Hamas, and a phased Israeli withdrawal.
However, “the idea of occupation, control, and pushing borders forward has become the core of the Israeli security doctrine," Palestinian political analyst Abdullah Aqrabawi said.
In early 2024, Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—declared that Israel would establish "full security control" over Gaza. In April 2025, he announced the creation of the so-called Morag Corridor, describing it as an additional security corridor dividing Gaza and signaling that Israel was "cutting up the Strip" to increase pressure on Hamas, which led the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
Last week, Netanyahu told an audience at a youth military academy that "we are now in 60% of the Gaza Strip, more or less." When the crowd interrupted with chants of "100%! 100%!," the prime minister replied: "Wait, let’s go in order. First 70%. Let’s start with that.”
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said last year that IDF troops were “expanding to crush and clean” Gaza while “seizing large areas that will be added to the security zones of the state of Israel for the protection of fighting forces and the settlements,” a reference to plans by far-right members of Netanyahu’s government and leaders of the settler movement for the ethnic cleansing and illegal Israeli recolonization of the Palestinian enclave.
Israel first colonized Gaza following its seizure during the 1967 Six-Day War; its settlements were dismantled in 2005 under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon amid stalled peace negotiations during the Second Intifada, or Palestinian uprising.
Katz and other Israeli leaders advocate for a US-backed "voluntary migration" plan for Gaza's Palestinians. However, critics call voluntary migration a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, given the unwillingness of most Palestinians to leave Gaza, most of whose inhabitants are the descendants of people forcibly expelled from other parts of Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in the late 1940s.
As Israel seizes more and more of Gaza, its forces continue killing Palestinians there despite the truce. The Gaza Ministry of Health said Wednesday that at least 119 Palestinians were killed in Gaza in May, the highest monthly total recorded this year. Those slain by IDF troops include 19 children and 10 women, with Israeli soldiers saying that indiscriminate killings of Palestinian civilians continue along the ever-shifting yellow line.
According to Gaza’s Government Media Office, Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 3,005 times, resulting in more than 900 Palestinians killed and nearly 2,800 others injured since last October. Since October 2023, more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded, including thousands of people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble.
Wednesday's Al Jazeera report follows another analysis published last week by the network using satellite imagery to show Israel's erasure of large swaths of southern Gaza, including cities, towns, farmland, and even cemeteries in what the article's authors called an Israeli effort at "erasing geography and memory."
“Satellites photograph the destroyed buildings, but they cannot document the feeling of a human searching for their home to no avail,” Palestinian journalist Muhannad Qishta said. “The hardest thing is not the destruction itself, but the stories buried beneath it.”