SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
austerity
'Hands Off Our Pensions': Belgian Workers Take to the Streets in General Strike Against Austerity Measures
It's the latest of several national strikes over the past year and a half against policies that one union leader said will heighten "inequality" and "poverty."
May 13, 2026
Much of Belgium ground to a halt on Tuesday as tens of thousands of workers flooded the streets of Brussels as part of a general strike against government austerity measures.
Schools closed, public transit operated with reduced service, and flights out of major airports were grounded as workers walked off the job. Instead, they marched through the capital clad in red and green, the colors of Belgium's major labor unions, with some carrying signs that read, "Hands off our pensions" and "We will not pay the price of their wars."
According to Morning Star, as many as 100,000 people took part in the strike, which was called by the nation's three biggest trade unions in protest of measures by Prime Minister Bart De Wever's government that the unions say slash pensions, reduce wages, and attack collective bargaining.
The marchers called on the government to roll back plans to raise Belgium's retirement age to 67 and have called for an end to what the unions have dubbed a “pension penalty” that would cut benefits for those who retire early.
Amid rising costs caused by the US-Israeli war against Iran, the unions are also outraged by a proposed temporary cap on wage indexation, which requires wages to rise in tandem with inflation.
It's part of a broader trend of the government loosening labor rules for employers, which unions say has led to longer, more irregular hours and diminished employees' work-life balance.
"People will have less money left over and will still have to work more flexibly and longer," said Ann Vermorgen, the chair of the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions. "Even the Planning Bureau says that the reform will promote inequality and that poverty will emerge.”
Tuesday's general strike was just the latest over the past year and a half, as the unions have refused to let up on their push to reverse De Wever's agenda.
Gert Truyens, the chair of the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (ACLVB), said that with the pension penalty and the other labor proposals, the government was displaying “total disregard” for social dialogue by “unilaterally imposing things without discussing them with the trade unions and employers.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Doesn't Have to Eliminate FEMA to Screw Disaster Victims
Just look at all of the ways the Trump administration has been slowly killing the federal relief agency in practice.
Dec 12, 2025
President Donald Trump’s Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council was scheduled to vote Thursday on a report containing several recommended changes to FEMA. This was supposed to happen during a meeting from 1:00 to 3:00 pm ET. However, I and many others who registered to attend virtually never received links for a meeting that was eventually canceled with no notice or explanation.
CNN reported Wednesday that the review council was planning “to recommend dramatic downsizing and overhaul—but not elimination—of the agency.” Too much is being made of the council’s decision to back away from the earlier demands of Trump and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem for the outright abolition of FEMA. Abolition would require an act of Congress, an institution that (contra Trump and, often, John Roberts) actually does still exist. And besides, the Trump administration doesn’t need to formally eradicate FEMA to destroy it; just look at all of the ways they’ve been slowly killing the agency in practice.
Here’s a fresh stunning example: Starting on December 15, FEMA’s Office of Response and Recovery is set to be led by Gregg Phillips, an election-denying conspiracy theorist with no relevant experience. That’s how you effectively demolish an agency without congressional approval. The QAnon-supporting Phillips is one of many examples of profoundly unqualified personnel now calling the shots at FEMA after experienced leaders, along with thousands of rank-and-file staff, were pushed out.
How else? Require every grant over $100,000 to be personally approved by Noem. That’s most grants, to be clear, as the Central Texas flooding disaster revealed in tragic fashion. Much of the Trump administration’s deadly assault on FEMA reflects ideas found in Project 2025, whose main architect is Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. That right-wing policy road map calls for foisting ever more responsibility for emergency preparedness and response onto states and localities despite the fact that only the federal government has the personnel and financial wherewithal to manage major disasters.
That Trump and his allies, many of whom are openly authoritarian, don’t seem worried about a negative political fallout is ominous.
Making matters worse, Trump is telling governors to step up while Noem and Vought are restricting relevant funding. The Trump administration continues to deprive communities of funding for hazard mitigation and infrastructural resilience even though every $1 invested in risk reduction saves an estimated $6 to $13, not to mention countless lives. As usual, Vought’s obsession with “fiscal responsibility” is a rhetorical ploy to justify slashing programs he doesn’t like.
We won’t know for sure until the final report is voted on, but according to CNN, the FEMA Review Council is expected to promote more of the same old austerity. A draft viewed by the outlet reportedly calls for cutting FEMA’s workforce “in half” and making it harder for states to qualify for federal disaster assistance. A longer draft was produced collectively by the council, but Noem, in her capacity as council co-chair, reportedly took a hacksaw to it, altering it in regressive ways. The forthcoming Noem-authored report should be interpreted as a continuation of the Trump administration’s lethal dismantling of FEMA. So too should the move to put Phillips in charge of the agency’s lifesaving disaster response and recovery work.
Phillips’ appointment comes at a time when the Trump administration is already delaying and denying disaster aid. There’s an apparent pattern of political retribution that warrants congressional investigation. Trump seems to relish opportunities to publicly praise “loyal” states when (partially) approving disaster assistance while punishing perceived enemies (e.g., rejecting requests from Illinois despite record-breaking damage).
That said, Trump’s abuse of the disaster declaration process—one component of Vought’s broader war on the federal government’s pro-social capacities—is harming working people everywhere. Republican-led states (e.g., Arkansas), swing states (e.g. Michigan and North Carolina), and pro-Trump counties in Democratic-led states (e.g., western Maryland) are not immune from the White House’s attacks on FEMA.
It remains to be seen whether Democrats will make Trump and his fellow Republicans pay a political price for abdicating the federal government’s responsibility to care for disaster victims. Ultimately, ignoring people in their moment of greatest need is bad politics. That Trump and his allies, many of whom are openly authoritarian, don’t seem worried about a negative political fallout is ominous; it suggests they don’t think they’ll have to face a fair news environment (hence the fixation on Trump-friendly oligarchs running elite media companies) or a fair election ever again.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mamdani's Win Is Proof That an Organized Public Can Defeat Organized Money
The most consistent project of elite politics is to cultivate resignation: Nothing can change, no one like you can win, best not to try. When that illusion breaks, even in a single city, it sends tremors outward.
Nov 06, 2025
Zohran Mamdani’s election in New York City is not simply a local upset. It is a breach in the ideological dam that has kept American politics safely contained for generations.
This victory is historic not because one office suddenly overturns entrenched power, but because it demonstrates that such power can be overturned at all.
For decades, political life in the United States has functioned as a managed marketplace in which both parties advertise different brands, yet deliver the same fundamental product: deference to private wealth, hostility to social investment, and a belief that the public should expect very little from its government beyond punishment and surveillance.
On Tuesday, that spell cracked.
Zohran's win feels like the beginning of the first meaningful challenge to the neoliberal consensus in a generation.
Mamdani won not by courting the wealthy, not by flattering real-estate interests, not by running a campaign tailored to the comfort of cable-news pundits.
He won by naming the obvious: that the city belongs to its people, not to absentee landlords; that housing, transit, childcare, food, and dignity are fundamental rights, not privileges; that a budget is a statement of who matters in society—and it’s long past time a city as wealthy as New York put working people first instead of billionaires and real-estate developers.
The bipartisan establishment will attempt to minimize this moment. They will continue to fund hysterical hit pieces designed to make people afraid of those challenging their rule. But their real fear is that this victory might prove contagious.
If New Yorkers can elect someone who openly challenges concentrated power, asks the wealthy to pay their share, and speaks in plain moral terms about economic justice, then perhaps Los Angeles can. Perhaps Cleveland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and Kansas City.
The danger, from the perspective of those who currently command the political economy, is that people elsewhere may decide to stop begging for crumbs and begin organizing for a real seat at the table.
Power relies on a population convinced of its own helplessness. The most consistent project of elite politics is to cultivate resignation: Nothing can change, no one like you can win, best not to try. When that illusion breaks, even in a single city, it sends tremors outward.
Across the country, millions watching the election results saw something rare in American politics: Proof that a campaign rooted in solidarity can beat one rooted in capital. They saw a future in which the public is not a spectator to its own dispossession. They saw permission to believe in their own power.
They saw that politics need not be reduced to a stage-managed rivalry between corporations wearing different campaign colors.
As someone who saw this possibility in the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders, who saw our movement defeated by this same bipartisan establishment, this moment gives me a renewed faith in America's capacity to fight back against oligarchy. Zohran's win feels like the beginning of the first meaningful challenge to the neoliberal consensus in a generation.
And that is why this victory matters. Not because one candidate triumphed, but because a barrier was crossed. The belief that the public must endure austerity while wealth accumulates above it has lost its inevitability. The idea that the mass media can manufacture consent for a Wall Street-approved candidate every time has shattered.
The attacks on Mamdani were relentless these past few months. But their hollow and desperate efforts failed. The majority didn't buy it, and they went to the polls to send Andrew Cuomo packing.
For the first time in a long time, the message is simple and electrifying:
The people can win. And if they can win here, they can win anywhere.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular