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.
Frontline community members and environmental groups marched in Ottawa, Canada on Sunday, April 21, 2024 to demand an ambitious Global Plastics Treaty.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution.
The stakes couldn’t be higher as we enter the final scheduled round of plastics treaty negotiations.
From November 25 to December 1, United Nations Member States will convene in Busan, Republic of Korea for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution—will they deliver a treaty that matches the urgency of the plastics crisis?
The global plastics crisis poses an escalating threat to the environment, public health, and the economy. Currently, 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels—the main driver of climate change—and production is on track to triple by 2050, accounting for 20% of global oil demand within the next two decades. This surge in plastic production could use up a staggering one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, seriously jeopardizing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Meanwhile, petrochemical and plastic markets face mounting economic challenges as overcapacity worsens, sustainable investments gain momentum, and regulatory pressures tighten. Despite stagnant demand and an oversaturated market, more than 1,400 new plastic production projects are planned by 2027. With historically low profit margins and warnings from credit rating agencies, economists have cautioned that expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production is both reckless and economically shortsighted. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) urges a production cap to address market imbalances and mitigate risks to the environment and the economy.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Negotiators will arrive in Busan with nearly 70 dizzying pages of draft text and more than 3,700 unresolved brackets—a signal that there is much divergence on what the treaty should or should not include. While INC Chair Luis Vayas has proposed a “non-paper” to streamline discussions, critics, including CIEL, warn that as it stands, it leaves key treaty provisions without suggested text and sets the stage for a weak and ineffective treaty. CIEL and Break Free From Plastic have put together a streamlined comparison of the non-paper and draft treaty text to inform and guide the negotiations.
As negotiations unfold, here are the key components a successful treaty must include:
Plastic’s toxic impacts permeate every stage of its life cycle. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are wholly inadequate to address this crisis. The solution must begin at the source: We need a treaty that caps plastic production. To align with global climate goals, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) recommends a minimum 70% reduction in plastic production by 2050, using 2019 as a baseline.
A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution—it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.
A treaty with a global production target but no binding national obligations risks becoming another “Paris-style” agreement—offering promises while delaying real action. Postponing decisions on national obligations is a dangerous gamble, with no guarantee of success. The first and most critical step toward meaningful reductions is preventing exponential plastic production growth. That’s why the treaty must mandate national measures to halt the expansion of production capacity, particularly for high-volume plastics driving the crisis.
Of the 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,200 are known to pose serious health and environmental hazards and risks and have been linked to miscarriage, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and more. Nearly 10,000 of them lack adequate data, posing unknown dangers. Following the advice of leading scientists, the treaty must adopt the precautionary principle, globally banning entire classes of hazardous chemicals, mandating transparency, and prioritizing human and environmental safety.
Plastics are a transboundary issue. Feedstocks, products, and waste flow across global markets, often circumventing regulations. The treaty must establish enforceable measures for tracking and managing trade, including rules for non-party countries that do not ratify, to prevent loopholes and maintain treaty efficacy.
After the treaty text is finalized and entered into force, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will convene to ensure the treaty’s implementation, monitor progress, and address emerging issues. Future decision-making must avoid the pitfalls of consensus voting, which risks stalling progress. A dynamic treaty must empower regular COPs to swiftly address emerging issues and ensure long-term success by establishing the possibility for qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
The treaty must establish a dedicated financial mechanism to support the achievement of its objectives, with a particular focus on assisting low- and middle-income countries. Member States should embrace innovative funding solutions, such as implementing a globally coordinated fee on primary polymer production.
As the INCs have already shown, Member States may attempt to dilute ambition and derail progress. These tactics can include a flood of procedural questions, denial of scientific consensus, claims of knowledge gaps, reopening agreed-upon text, and requesting additional information to delay decision-making.
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have infiltrated previous negotiations. According to an analysis by CIEL, the number of lobbyists at INC-4 outnumbered European Union delegates. Strict conflict of interest policies and transparency measures are necessary to ensure that the treaty’s implementation is protected from the vested interests of these industries.
As negotiators feel the pressure of a ticking clock, they may be tempted to scale back ambition, sideline critical topics, or adopt a weak, non-binding framework. Negotiators must balance urgency with ambition to ensure a treaty that meets its mandate.
INC-5 negotiations come just weeks after Donald Trump’s reelection, raising concerns about how this may shape the U.S. delegation’s stance in Busan. Trump has made clear his alignment with an industry that not only undermines climate imperatives but is facing economic decline.
Despite this, most nations have shown a strong commitment to moving away from toxic, polluting plastics. The U.S. negotiating team remains under the Biden-Harris administration’s directive, and global negotiators must not let the recent election derail global progress. If the U.S. fails to advocate for an ambitious treaty, they risk being left behind as other countries forge the way.
The final plastics treaty must deliver more than lofty goals. We call on negotiators to deliver real, enforceable solutions that:
The world cannot afford a weak or voluntary treaty that prioritizes industry interests over human and planetary health. Leaders in Busan must rise to the occasion and deliver the bold, binding agreement we need to tackle the plastics crisis.
Without a robust treaty, we risk locking in decades of escalating plastic production, worsening climate impacts, and irreparable harm to ecosystems and communities worldwide. The time for incremental steps is over. It’s now or never.
The world is watching. Will INC-5 deliver the treaty we deserve?
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
The stakes couldn’t be higher as we enter the final scheduled round of plastics treaty negotiations.
From November 25 to December 1, United Nations Member States will convene in Busan, Republic of Korea for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution—will they deliver a treaty that matches the urgency of the plastics crisis?
The global plastics crisis poses an escalating threat to the environment, public health, and the economy. Currently, 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels—the main driver of climate change—and production is on track to triple by 2050, accounting for 20% of global oil demand within the next two decades. This surge in plastic production could use up a staggering one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, seriously jeopardizing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Meanwhile, petrochemical and plastic markets face mounting economic challenges as overcapacity worsens, sustainable investments gain momentum, and regulatory pressures tighten. Despite stagnant demand and an oversaturated market, more than 1,400 new plastic production projects are planned by 2027. With historically low profit margins and warnings from credit rating agencies, economists have cautioned that expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production is both reckless and economically shortsighted. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) urges a production cap to address market imbalances and mitigate risks to the environment and the economy.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Negotiators will arrive in Busan with nearly 70 dizzying pages of draft text and more than 3,700 unresolved brackets—a signal that there is much divergence on what the treaty should or should not include. While INC Chair Luis Vayas has proposed a “non-paper” to streamline discussions, critics, including CIEL, warn that as it stands, it leaves key treaty provisions without suggested text and sets the stage for a weak and ineffective treaty. CIEL and Break Free From Plastic have put together a streamlined comparison of the non-paper and draft treaty text to inform and guide the negotiations.
As negotiations unfold, here are the key components a successful treaty must include:
Plastic’s toxic impacts permeate every stage of its life cycle. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are wholly inadequate to address this crisis. The solution must begin at the source: We need a treaty that caps plastic production. To align with global climate goals, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) recommends a minimum 70% reduction in plastic production by 2050, using 2019 as a baseline.
A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution—it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.
A treaty with a global production target but no binding national obligations risks becoming another “Paris-style” agreement—offering promises while delaying real action. Postponing decisions on national obligations is a dangerous gamble, with no guarantee of success. The first and most critical step toward meaningful reductions is preventing exponential plastic production growth. That’s why the treaty must mandate national measures to halt the expansion of production capacity, particularly for high-volume plastics driving the crisis.
Of the 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,200 are known to pose serious health and environmental hazards and risks and have been linked to miscarriage, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and more. Nearly 10,000 of them lack adequate data, posing unknown dangers. Following the advice of leading scientists, the treaty must adopt the precautionary principle, globally banning entire classes of hazardous chemicals, mandating transparency, and prioritizing human and environmental safety.
Plastics are a transboundary issue. Feedstocks, products, and waste flow across global markets, often circumventing regulations. The treaty must establish enforceable measures for tracking and managing trade, including rules for non-party countries that do not ratify, to prevent loopholes and maintain treaty efficacy.
After the treaty text is finalized and entered into force, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will convene to ensure the treaty’s implementation, monitor progress, and address emerging issues. Future decision-making must avoid the pitfalls of consensus voting, which risks stalling progress. A dynamic treaty must empower regular COPs to swiftly address emerging issues and ensure long-term success by establishing the possibility for qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
The treaty must establish a dedicated financial mechanism to support the achievement of its objectives, with a particular focus on assisting low- and middle-income countries. Member States should embrace innovative funding solutions, such as implementing a globally coordinated fee on primary polymer production.
As the INCs have already shown, Member States may attempt to dilute ambition and derail progress. These tactics can include a flood of procedural questions, denial of scientific consensus, claims of knowledge gaps, reopening agreed-upon text, and requesting additional information to delay decision-making.
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have infiltrated previous negotiations. According to an analysis by CIEL, the number of lobbyists at INC-4 outnumbered European Union delegates. Strict conflict of interest policies and transparency measures are necessary to ensure that the treaty’s implementation is protected from the vested interests of these industries.
As negotiators feel the pressure of a ticking clock, they may be tempted to scale back ambition, sideline critical topics, or adopt a weak, non-binding framework. Negotiators must balance urgency with ambition to ensure a treaty that meets its mandate.
INC-5 negotiations come just weeks after Donald Trump’s reelection, raising concerns about how this may shape the U.S. delegation’s stance in Busan. Trump has made clear his alignment with an industry that not only undermines climate imperatives but is facing economic decline.
Despite this, most nations have shown a strong commitment to moving away from toxic, polluting plastics. The U.S. negotiating team remains under the Biden-Harris administration’s directive, and global negotiators must not let the recent election derail global progress. If the U.S. fails to advocate for an ambitious treaty, they risk being left behind as other countries forge the way.
The final plastics treaty must deliver more than lofty goals. We call on negotiators to deliver real, enforceable solutions that:
The world cannot afford a weak or voluntary treaty that prioritizes industry interests over human and planetary health. Leaders in Busan must rise to the occasion and deliver the bold, binding agreement we need to tackle the plastics crisis.
Without a robust treaty, we risk locking in decades of escalating plastic production, worsening climate impacts, and irreparable harm to ecosystems and communities worldwide. The time for incremental steps is over. It’s now or never.
The world is watching. Will INC-5 deliver the treaty we deserve?
The stakes couldn’t be higher as we enter the final scheduled round of plastics treaty negotiations.
From November 25 to December 1, United Nations Member States will convene in Busan, Republic of Korea for the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution—will they deliver a treaty that matches the urgency of the plastics crisis?
The global plastics crisis poses an escalating threat to the environment, public health, and the economy. Currently, 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels—the main driver of climate change—and production is on track to triple by 2050, accounting for 20% of global oil demand within the next two decades. This surge in plastic production could use up a staggering one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, seriously jeopardizing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Meanwhile, petrochemical and plastic markets face mounting economic challenges as overcapacity worsens, sustainable investments gain momentum, and regulatory pressures tighten. Despite stagnant demand and an oversaturated market, more than 1,400 new plastic production projects are planned by 2027. With historically low profit margins and warnings from credit rating agencies, economists have cautioned that expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production is both reckless and economically shortsighted. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) urges a production cap to address market imbalances and mitigate risks to the environment and the economy.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Negotiators will arrive in Busan with nearly 70 dizzying pages of draft text and more than 3,700 unresolved brackets—a signal that there is much divergence on what the treaty should or should not include. While INC Chair Luis Vayas has proposed a “non-paper” to streamline discussions, critics, including CIEL, warn that as it stands, it leaves key treaty provisions without suggested text and sets the stage for a weak and ineffective treaty. CIEL and Break Free From Plastic have put together a streamlined comparison of the non-paper and draft treaty text to inform and guide the negotiations.
As negotiations unfold, here are the key components a successful treaty must include:
Plastic’s toxic impacts permeate every stage of its life cycle. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are wholly inadequate to address this crisis. The solution must begin at the source: We need a treaty that caps plastic production. To align with global climate goals, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) recommends a minimum 70% reduction in plastic production by 2050, using 2019 as a baseline.
A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution—it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.
A treaty with a global production target but no binding national obligations risks becoming another “Paris-style” agreement—offering promises while delaying real action. Postponing decisions on national obligations is a dangerous gamble, with no guarantee of success. The first and most critical step toward meaningful reductions is preventing exponential plastic production growth. That’s why the treaty must mandate national measures to halt the expansion of production capacity, particularly for high-volume plastics driving the crisis.
Of the 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,200 are known to pose serious health and environmental hazards and risks and have been linked to miscarriage, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and more. Nearly 10,000 of them lack adequate data, posing unknown dangers. Following the advice of leading scientists, the treaty must adopt the precautionary principle, globally banning entire classes of hazardous chemicals, mandating transparency, and prioritizing human and environmental safety.
Plastics are a transboundary issue. Feedstocks, products, and waste flow across global markets, often circumventing regulations. The treaty must establish enforceable measures for tracking and managing trade, including rules for non-party countries that do not ratify, to prevent loopholes and maintain treaty efficacy.
After the treaty text is finalized and entered into force, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will convene to ensure the treaty’s implementation, monitor progress, and address emerging issues. Future decision-making must avoid the pitfalls of consensus voting, which risks stalling progress. A dynamic treaty must empower regular COPs to swiftly address emerging issues and ensure long-term success by establishing the possibility for qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
The treaty must establish a dedicated financial mechanism to support the achievement of its objectives, with a particular focus on assisting low- and middle-income countries. Member States should embrace innovative funding solutions, such as implementing a globally coordinated fee on primary polymer production.
As the INCs have already shown, Member States may attempt to dilute ambition and derail progress. These tactics can include a flood of procedural questions, denial of scientific consensus, claims of knowledge gaps, reopening agreed-upon text, and requesting additional information to delay decision-making.
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have infiltrated previous negotiations. According to an analysis by CIEL, the number of lobbyists at INC-4 outnumbered European Union delegates. Strict conflict of interest policies and transparency measures are necessary to ensure that the treaty’s implementation is protected from the vested interests of these industries.
As negotiators feel the pressure of a ticking clock, they may be tempted to scale back ambition, sideline critical topics, or adopt a weak, non-binding framework. Negotiators must balance urgency with ambition to ensure a treaty that meets its mandate.
INC-5 negotiations come just weeks after Donald Trump’s reelection, raising concerns about how this may shape the U.S. delegation’s stance in Busan. Trump has made clear his alignment with an industry that not only undermines climate imperatives but is facing economic decline.
Despite this, most nations have shown a strong commitment to moving away from toxic, polluting plastics. The U.S. negotiating team remains under the Biden-Harris administration’s directive, and global negotiators must not let the recent election derail global progress. If the U.S. fails to advocate for an ambitious treaty, they risk being left behind as other countries forge the way.
The final plastics treaty must deliver more than lofty goals. We call on negotiators to deliver real, enforceable solutions that:
The world cannot afford a weak or voluntary treaty that prioritizes industry interests over human and planetary health. Leaders in Busan must rise to the occasion and deliver the bold, binding agreement we need to tackle the plastics crisis.
Without a robust treaty, we risk locking in decades of escalating plastic production, worsening climate impacts, and irreparable harm to ecosystems and communities worldwide. The time for incremental steps is over. It’s now or never.
The world is watching. Will INC-5 deliver the treaty we deserve?
"If the government can do this to universities, we don't live in a free society. Five alarm fire," wrote one professor.
Amid a week of scrutiny from the Trump administration on higher education, the U.S. Department of Education announced Friday that it has opened investigations into dozens of universities for "allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs." The department is also probing whether six universities awarded "impermissible race-based scholarships."
The investigations are part of the administration's wider crackdown on so-called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs and initiatives, and comes as the Trump administration is also taking aim at universities with the purported goal of rooting out antisemitism on college campuses.
The newly announced investigations from Department of Education follows a memo issued last month by the department warning that colleges and universities that receive federal funding must cease using "race-based preferences" in admissions, scholarships, compensation, and other areas.
“The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination," said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a statement released Friday. "Today's announcement expands our efforts to ensure universities are not discriminating against their students based on race and race stereotypes."
Forty-five schools, including Ivy League institutions such as Yale University, are facing inquiries because of their alleged partnership with the PhD Project, an organization that supports people from historically underrepresented groups in obtaining business PhDs, according to a recent annual report from the group.
The Department of Education is also investigating six schools for "allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and one university for allegedly administering a program that segregates students on the basis of race."
Meanwhile, the Department of Education on Thursday sent letters to 60 universities "warning them of potential enforcement actions" if they do not take adequate steps to protect Jewish students. Schools that received letters from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights include multiple University of California schools, multiple State University of New York schools, Harvard University, and others.
"I don't take a back seat to anyone on the subject of antisemitism. Jews are being used here as a fig leaf to advance a broader attack on universities and higher learning," wrote Josh Marshall, the founder of the outlet Talking Points Memo, in response to the Thursday statement from the Department of Education. "Trump wants to bring Universities to heel and obedience. Jews are just a convenient cudgel here and just as disposable."
U.S. President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order on January 29 pledging to combat antisemitism on college campuses, has vowed to crack down on pro-Palestine protesters at universities.
Columbia University, in particular, has borne the brunt of Trump's scrutiny—despite the fact that university administration has already demonstrated it is willing to resort to punitive measures to quell student protest.
In a March 7 press release, members of Trump's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced the cancellation of $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia, and a day later immigration agents arrested a recent Columbia University graduate who played a major role in pro-Palestine demonstrations last year. The arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident, has been widely decried.
The Trump administration sent a letter to Columbia University Interim President Katrina Armstrong on Thursday outlining a series of demands that Columbia must comply with in order to maintain a "continued financial relationship" between the school and the government.
The policy shifts outlined in the letter include implementing a mask ban and the granting of "full law enforcement authority, including arrest and removal of agitators," for university security. The letter requires that Columbia complete disciplinary proceedings for students involved in last year's Gaza Solidarity Encampments and occupation of Hamilton Hall. "Meaningful discipline means expulsion or multi-year suspension," according to the letter.
On Thursday, Columbia issued expulsions, multi-year suspensions, and temporary degree revocations for students involved in the Hamilton occupation.
"If the government can do this to universities, we don't live in a free society. Five alarm fire," wrote Brendan Nyhan, a professor and political scientist at Dartmouth College, of the Trump administration's demands.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, released a statement decrying the demands the Trump administration is placing on Columbia.
"The subjugation of universities to official power is a hallmark of autocracy. No one should be under any illusions about what’s going on here," said Jaffer.
"Bloodbath of a consumer sentiment print," said one policy expert. "People hate the Trump economy."
Data published Friday shows that U.S. consumer sentiment cratered in early March to its lowest level since late 2022 as President Donald Trump's erratic tariff policies and assault on the federal government—the nation's largest employer—spurred far-reaching economic chaos.
The University of Michigan's closely watched consumer confidence gauge shows that sentiment "slid another 11% this month, with declines seen consistently across all groups by age, education, income, wealth, political affiliations, and geographic regions."
"While current economic conditions were little changed, expectations for the future deteriorated across multiple facets of the economy, including personal finances, labor markets, inflation, business conditions, and stock markets," said Joanne Hsu, director of the university's Surveys of Consumers. "Many consumers cited the high level of uncertainty around policy and other economic factors; frequent gyrations in economic policies make it very difficult for consumers to plan for the future, regardless of one's policy preferences."
"Consumers from all three political affiliations are in agreement that the outlook has weakened since February," Hsu added. "Despite their greater confidence following the election, Republicans posted a sizable 10% decline in their expectations index in March. For Independents and Democrats, the expectations index declined an even steeper 12% and 24%, respectively."
The survey also found that consumer inflation expectations jumped to their highest level since November 2022, an indication that Americans are concerned about the impact that Trump's trade war will have on prices, which the president promised during his campaign to bring down.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement that the "shocking consumer sentiment numbers are a referendum on the president’s mishandling of the economy, just 54 days into office."
"Working families are longing for stability as their grocery bills and rent payments continue to climb, but Trump's chaotic approach to the economy has them feeling more uncertain than ever," said Jacquez. "Consumers are rightly terrified about what lies ahead. The administration is more focused on gutting Social Security to pay for tax giveaways to billionaires and corporations than they are making life more affordable for working families."
The new consumer survey data comes a week after a Labor Department report showed that the U.S. added significantly fewer jobs than expected in February, which one economist described as "the calm before the storm" as the Trump administration fires tens of thousands of federal workers, fuels widespread unease and confusion with his tariff threats, and backs devastating cuts to Medicaid and other key programs.
"The administration seems determined to squander and wreck the strong economy," Josh Bivens, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute, wrote earlier this week. "Each of the individual policies they are pursuing—illegal layoffs of federal workers, mass deportations, constant threats and retractions of broad-based tariffs, and Medicaid spending cuts—would be bad for the economy. But each policy is also being pursued with maximum levels of chaos and incoordination, creating unprecedented levels of economic uncertainty. This uncertainty is itself a serious economic threat."
"Absent a radical reversal of the current policy agenda, the U.S. will be a poorer country at the end of Trump's term than it should have been," Bivens added. "The only open question is how rapidly this de-growth will happen, whether more quickly through a sharp recession or more slowly as the supply destruction outpaces demand destruction."
One Democratic congresswoman called the partnership "a blatant move toward privatization."
U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's Thursday announcement that the independent United States Postal Service is partnering with the Department of Government Efficiency on a cost-cutting crusade that includes a planned reduction of 10,000 workers stoked fears that one of America's most trusted and relied-upon federal agencies is on a path toward privatization.
In a
letter to congressional leaders, DeJoy said DOGE will help the USPS "in identifying and achieving further efficiencies." The postal chief listed "mismanagement" of the agency's retirement assets and workers' compensation program, "unfunded mandates imposed on us by legislation," and "burdensome regulatory requirements restricting normal business practice" as issues to be addressed.
Scoop: Postmaster General Louis DeJoy agreed last nigh to collaborate with DOGE "to assist us in identifying and achieving further efficiencies." Follows Monday meeting at USPS headquarters between DOGE & DeJoy. We've reported Trump considering privatizing USPS or merging with Commerce Dept.
[image or embed]
— Jacob Bogage ( @jacobbogage.bsky.social) March 13, 2025 at 10:59 AM
"The letter suggests alarming actions for DOGE to pursue that would easily lead to the privatization and politicization of the Postal Service," Democrats on the U.S. House Oversight Committee said in response to the announcement. "This includes DeJoy's call to gut or even terminate the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent regulator of the Postal Service created by Congress and responsible for approving rate changes and ensuring appropriate service."
Brian Renfroe, president of the nearly 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), said Thursday that while "policy changes are needed to improve the Postal Service's financial viability... misguided ideas like privatization" are not the answer.
"Commonsense solutions are what the Postal Service needs, not privatization efforts that will threaten 640,000 postal employees' jobs, 7.9 million jobs tied to our work, and the universal service every American relies on daily," Renfroe added.
DeJoy—who last month announced his intent to step down after more than four years in office—has led a dramatic restructuring of the USPS, a constitutionally sanctioned agency. His tenure has been marred by allegations of criminal election obstruction, conflicts of interest, and other corruption. Critics have also warned that DeJoy's Delivering for America, a 10-year austerity plan, put the agency on a fast track toward slower service, job cuts, and, ultimately, privatization.
U.S. President Donald Trump has acknowledged that his administration is revisiting plans to possibly privatize the Postal Service—a policy recommended by the Office of Management and Budget during his first term. Last month, The Washington Post reported that Trump planned to fire the entire Postal Board of Governors and bring the independent USPS under control of the Department of Commerce, a move experts argue would likely be illegal.
Elon Musk, the de facto head of DOGE, said earlier this month that the USPS and Amtrak, the national passenger rail service, should be privatized.
DOGE's short but staggering track record of eviscerating federal agencies by dubiously firing tens of thousands of workers—a policy a federal judge found illegal on Thursday—is deeply concerning to many defenders of the Postal Service.
"The only thing worse for the Postal Service than DeJoy's Delivering for America plan is turning the service over to Elon Musk and DOGE so they can undermine it, privatize it, and then profit off Americans' loss," Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said Thursday.
"This capitulation will have catastrophic consequences for all Americans—especially those in rural and hard-to-reach areas—who rely on the Postal Service every day to deliver mail, medications, ballots, and more," the congressman added. "Reliable mail delivery can't just be reserved for MAGA supporters and Tesla owners."
Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.) said on social media Thursday: "Louis DeJoy just admitted he agreed to hand over the Postal Service to Elon Musk. This is a blatant move toward privatization, and I will fight to protect our postal workers and ensure affordable service—especially for rural communities."
Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) said the agreement "threatens millions who rely on USPS for medications, Social Security checks, and staying connected."
National days of action in defense of the Postal Service are planned for
March 20 by the American Postal Workers Union and March 23 by NALC.