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
covid-19
Trump Administration Slammed for Slashing $12 Billion in Funding for State Health Services
"These are not people who want to make America healthy," said one advocate for people with disabilities. "They want to make the sick disappear."
Mar 26, 2025
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services canceled more than $12 billion in federal funding for state health departments across the nation, money that is used to track infectious diseases and provide mental health services, addiction treatment, and other critical care.
NBC Newsreported Wednesday that $11.4 billion of the canceled grants were earmarked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for state and community health departments, nongovernmental organizations, and international recipients following the Covid-19 pandemic. Around $1 billion worth of grants are being pulled from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
"The Covid-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a nonexistent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago," Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement. "HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President [Donald] Trump's mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again."
This is just stunning. HHS has abruptly canceled more than $12 billion in federal grants to states that were being used for tracking infectious diseases, mental health services, addiction treatment and other urgent health issues.
[image or embed]
— Charles Ornstein ( @charlesornstein.bsky.social) March 26, 2025 at 1:36 PM
However, experts point to the certainty of future pandemics—like an avian flu strain that mutates to pass between humans—in urging public health policy planners to maintain or even increase preparedness and response funding.
NBC News reported that the 13 agencies overseen by HHS were sent notices starting Monday, which informed them that they have 30 days to reconcile their expenditures.
For some state and community healthcare providers, the effects of the cuts were immediate.
There was an abrupt $11B cut to local/state public health (PH) infrastructure yesterday. I don't think people realize what this means: -Want an updated system to check your immunizations instead of digging through docs? PH no longer able to carry out upgrades to immunization information systems
— Katelyn Jetelina ( @kkjetelina.bsky.social) March 26, 2025 at 11:34 AM
As The New York Timesreported:
In Lubbock, Texas, public health officials have received orders to stop work supported by three grants that helped fund the response to the widening measles outbreak there, according to Katherine Wells, the city's director of public health.
On Tuesday, some state health departments were preparing to lay off dozens of epidemiologists and data scientists. Others, including Texas, Maine, and Rhode Island, were still scrambling to understand the impact of the cuts before taking any action.
In interviews, state health officials predicted that thousands of health department employees and contract workers could lose their jobs nationwide. Some predicted the loss of as much as 90% of staff from some infectious disease teams.
"We learned yesterday that the federal government has unilaterally terminated approximately $226 million in grants to Minnesota Department of Health related to the Covid-19 pandemic," Minnesota Commissioner of Health Dr. Brooke Cunningham said in a statement. "This termination is effective immediately and impacts ongoing work and contracts. This action was sudden and unexpected."
Lori Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, toldCBS News that much of the funding would have expired soon anyway.
"It's ending in the next six months," she said. "There's no reason—why rescind it now? It's just cruel and unusual behavior."
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment communications director Kristina Iodice toldNBC News, "We are concerned that this sudden loss of federal funding threatens Colorado's ability to track Covid-19 trends and other emerging diseases, modernize disease data systems, respond to outbreaks, and provide critical immunization access, outreach, and education—leaving communities more vulnerable to future public health crises."
The first Trump administration was widely criticized for shortcomings in these fields. A congressional panel issued a 2022 report accusing top administration officials of "failed stewardship" and a "persistent pattern of political interference" that undermined the nation's response to Covid-19, which to date has killed more than 1.2 million people in the United States and is still claiming hundreds of lives each week, according to CDC figures.
Wednesday's reportingd came as HHS, CDC, and other critical agencies braced for more cuts and layoffs ordered by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his aides are also "nearing their final decisions on a sweeping restructuring of the department," CBS Newsreported last week.
Last month, Senate Democrats demanded answers from Kennedy regarding the purge of more than 5,000 HHS workers after the agency "blindly followed" a "baseless directive" by Trump and DOGE that the lawmakers said is "blatantly undermining Americans' health and safety."
As Common Dreamsreported Wednesday, public health experts have also condemned the administration's decision to terminate funding for Gavi, the global vaccine alliance—a move critics warned could result in the deaths of over 1 million children in the Global South.
"Investing in Gavi brings other benefits for our world and the American people," the alliance said. "Here's why: By maintaining global stockpiles of vaccines against deadly diseases like Ebola, mpox, and yellow fever, we help keep America safe. These diseases do not respect borders, they can cross continents in hours and cost billions of dollars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Covid Reichstag Moment: How Eugenic Interpretations Fuel Authoritarianism
The retroactive calculus of whose lives are worth sacrificing for economic metrics is eerily reminiscent of early 20th-century eugenic practices that sorted humans into categories of "fit" and "unfit," determining whose lives were expendable.
Mar 21, 2025
In a recent episode of The New York Times' "The Daily" podcast, host Michael Barbaro interviewed two Princeton political scientists about their new book examining Covid-19 policy failures. Instead of contextualizing the pandemic response within our current democratic crisis, the episode introduced a troubling revisionist narrative: that public health officials who prioritized saving lives were somehow wrong.
Shrouded under the protective guise of political scientist academics presenting "objective" analysis, a politically biased argument was offered as necessary news for the day—an editorial choice made even more striking given the sheer volume of immediate, existential threats to our democracy that warranted urgent coverage instead. This was the necessary deep dive audience needed to know according to The New York Times to better understand the news of the day on the exact same day when U.S. President Donald Trump was expected to announce the closure of the Department of Education and days after Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare public rebuke of Trump for threatening to impeach a federal judge over a migration ruling. While our judiciary's independence was under direct assault and educational access for millions of Americans hung in the balance, The "Daily" chose to relitigate pandemic policies through the lens of economic grievance—a choice that speaks volumes about which narratives powerful media institutions consider worthy of amplification.
Public health officials who refused to accept this calculus—who insisted that every life deserved protection—were vilified by those who preferred simpler narratives about individual freedom over collective responsibility.
This shift in narrative about Covid-19 and the deliberately limiting analysis of this complex issue is not just provocative but dangerous given the coordinated assault on public health happening across the country. As multiple Republican-led states advance legislation to ban masks—tools proven to save lives and reduce symptom severity—and as the Trump administration threatens academic freedom by pressuring Columbia University to comply with a list of harrowing demands including criminalizing masking on campus, major media platforms are inexplicably amplifying critiques of the very experts who risked their careers and safety to protect the public during a deeply uncertain time. These public health officials have already endured death threats and targeted harassment campaigns from right-wing extremists, including Elon Musk who tweeted one early Sunday morning in 2022 "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci." Now, The New York Times lends its institutional credibility to the same dangerous narratives, effectively mainstreaming the delegitimization of scientific expertise—a classic precursor to authoritarian control.
What's most striking about this conversation isn't just its timing, but what it omits. Throughout history, crises have been exploited by authoritarian forces to dismantle democratic institutions and consolidate power. Covid-19 represents our generation's Reichstag fire moment—a crisis that has been weaponized to erode democratic norms worldwide.
Crisis as Opportunity for Authoritarianism
The historical pattern is clear. After the 1933 Reichstag fire, Hitler immediately blamed communists, enacted emergency powers, suspended civil liberties, and used propaganda to create fear among the German population. Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin exploited the 1999 Russian apartment bombings to blame Chechen separatists, launch military campaigns, restrict civil liberties, control media, and crack down on political opposition.
Covid-19 has followed the same authoritarian playbook globally. Governments worldwide enacted emergency powers, increased surveillance, eroded democratic norms, and exploited societal fears. Myanmar's military used the pandemic to justify their 2021 coup. Right-wing extremist groups weaponized misinformation to promote xenophobic rhetoric.
But what's uniquely dangerous about The New York Times' framing is how it subtly reinforces the authoritarian narrative by questioning the very public health experts who refused to calculate human life against economic metrics. When the voices of Dr. Anthony Fauci and others are played alongside criticism from political scientists—not public health experts—who make clear that they measure success beyond the saving of lives, we're witnessing the normalization of disposability. This calculus of whose lives are worth sacrificing for economic metrics is eerily reminiscent of early 20th-century eugenic practices that sorted humans into categories of "fit" and "unfit," determining whose lives were expendable—a ideology that was once condemned by civilized society but now finds subtle—rolling back Medicaid and cutting special education impact disabled people the most—and terribly overt resurrection in our public sphere.
The Real Covid-19 Story Is About Who We Choose to Save
The pandemic revealed which communities our society deemed worthy of protection and which were considered sacrificial for economic priorities. Public health officials who refused to accept this calculus—who insisted that every life deserved protection—were vilified by those who preferred simpler narratives about individual freedom over collective responsibility.
We cannot separate our understanding of the pandemic from the broader context of growing authoritarianism. The forces threatening democracy today are not single-issue problems but interconnected crises: white supremacy, media fragmentation as social media algorithms feed us visions of worlds comprised of binaries instead of nuances, attacks on gender and racial equity, and ludicrously widening wealth inequality. The rich are getting richer while essential workers—disproportionately the economically marginalized and people of color—were sacrificed during the pandemic. And we have lost our shared reality as social media oligarchs make billions from our mistrust of one another—the same oligarchs who now fund the politicians seeking to rewrite pandemic history, who now have metaphorically repaved the front lawn of the White House as a used car lot. These aren't coincidences but a coherent authoritarian strategy: fragment the population, erase collective memory, pit communities against each other, and dismantle faith in expertise and shared facts. And, as The New York Times demonstrated on March 20, you can do this all under the guise of objective reporting.
Covid-19 was successfully exploited by authoritarian leaders worldwide precisely because they offered simple explanations where reality required nuance. They promised quick returns to normalcy when responsible leadership demanded difficult truths. They divided communities into the essential and non-essential, the worthy and unworthy.
Responsible Media Must Connect the Dots
When major media outlets like The New York Times allow political scientists to critique public health experts without this broader context, they become unwitting accomplices in the authoritarian project. By focusing narrowly on whether lockdowns were "effective" without examining how authoritarians exploited both the crisis and the response, they miss the forest for the trees. They become complicit in emboldening authoritarians.
The question isn't whether public health officials made perfect decisions with imperfect information during an unprecedented global emergency. The question is: Who benefits from undermining trust in the institutions and experts who tried to save as many lives as possible, regardless of economic cost? The answer should trouble us: the same authoritarian forces that have weaponized every crisis throughout history to dismantle democratic institutions and consolidate power.
As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 crisis, we will inevitably see more attempts to understand and reframe that era—but these analyses must be conducted responsibly.
As we reflect on Covid-19's impact, responsible journalism must place these conversations within our broader democratic crisis. The political scientists at Princeton should know better. The New York Times should know better. And those of us who lived through the pandemic—who witnessed firsthand how extremist politicians like Trump weaponized confusion and suffering to stoke fear, cultivate rage, and deepen divisions—we certainly do know better. We watched as misinformation about masks, vaccines, and public health measures was deliberately spread to fracture communities and undermine institutions. We saw how this manufactured outrage directly fueled the violence at the Capitol and created the fertile ground for today's authoritarian resurgence. Our lived experience of this cynical exploitation demands more from our media than revisionist narratives that conveniently forget this deliberate destabilization.
We must ask ourselves why certain narratives are amplified at specific moments in our national conversation. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 crisis, we will inevitably see more attempts to understand and reframe that era—but these analyses must be conducted responsibly, with full awareness of how limiting narratives can embolden authoritarians and reinforce eugenic hierarchies. The New York Times chose to revisit Covid-19 policies on the same day the Department of Education faced potential elimination—yet they failed to connect how disabled students, already disproportionately harmed during the pandemic, would lose critical protections and supports if this department disappeared. This is not coincidental. It is part of a pattern where eugenic ideology infiltrates mainstream discourse precisely when vulnerable communities need protection most. Media institutions that claim to help us make sense of the world instead reinforce the disposability of certain lives—whether by advocating economic metrics over human survival, by giving platforms to those who see the disabled as acceptable collateral damage, or by simply choosing which crises deserve attention and which can be ignored.
Our responsibility is clear: We must identify these eugenic patterns whenever they appear, name them for what they are, and refuse to accept any worldview that sorts human beings into categories of those worth saving and those not worth saving. When media fails in this moral obligation, we must hold them accountable—not just for the stories they choose to tell, but for the future they help create through those choices. The lessons of history demand nothing less.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In the Ongoing Billionaire Heist, Schumer and Fetterman Are Driving the Getaway Car
While the senators claim to be fighting for the working class, their actions—like voting for a government funding bill that slashes social spending while protecting corporate interests—show they’re more focused on keeping the machine running than fixing what’s broken.
Mar 18, 2025
Let’s discuss something happening under our noses: The middle class is disappearing.
Last week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) teamed up with Republicans to pass a government funding bill. If you ask them, they’ll say, “We did this to save American workers!”
But, if they cared about American workers, they wouldn’t have cut $13 billion from healthcare, education, and infrastructure while adding $6 billion to defense. Unless the average American is now classified as a fighter jet, that extra money isn’t going to help you.
So the next time a politician tells you they’re fighting for you, ask them: What are they doing to take wealth and power away from the billionaire class?
And that’s the problem. Over and over, we’re told that these decisions are in our best interest. Yet somehow, the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us are left with higher bills, lower wages, and a government that never seems to have money for schools or healthcare—but always has billions for bombs.
Why? Because the billionaires at the top have turned the economy into a giant vacuum—and guess what? It’s sucking up everything you own.
Here’s the kicker: Most people don’t even realize it’s happening. Things cost more. Your savings may be shrinking. But you still have food on the table, so it doesn’t feel like a crisis—yet.
Seniors notice it first—property taxes and school taxes. Their fixed income isn’t stretching as far, so they complain about taxes because they assume the government can do nothing about rising prices but can lower taxes.
Younger people? They know something is off, but they’ve been told to blame immigrants. ”They’re buying up your homes! They’re driving up rent!” That’s exactly what the rich want you to believe—because as long as we’re busy fighting each other, we’re not paying attention to the people rigging the system.
Are we going to fall for it again? Or are we going to start paying attention?
While Schumer and Fetterman claim to be fighting for the working class, their actions—like voting for a government funding bill that slashes social spending while protecting corporate interests—show they’re more focused on keeping the machine running than fixing what’s broken.
What’s broken? The fact that wealth isn’t disappearing—it’s just being moved.
The Pandemic Was Among the Biggest Wealth Transfers in History—And You Paid for It
It started how these things always begin: with regular people getting squeezed. Offices shut down. Businesses closed. Millions of people were laid off overnight. Rent was still due, bills kept coming, and suddenly, survival wasn’t just about avoiding a virus—it was about making it to the next month without losing everything.
Meanwhile, something very different happened in a parallel universe occupied by the world’s wealthiest men. In just two years, the 10 richest men on the planet doubled their net worth—going from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion. That’s an extra $15,000 per second. Not for doing anything new. Not for inventing anything, building anything, or working harder than anyone else.
At the same time, 160 million people fell into poverty. That’s roughly half the U.S. population—wiped out financially while the wealthiest men on Earth raked in $1 trillion.
This wasn’t an accident. It wasn’t a glitch in the system. It was the system. The pandemic proved that the real money isn’t in work; it isn’t in clocking in early and staying late. It’s in ownership. If you have read Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Robert Kiyosaki tried to teach us this; the rich listened.
Billionaires became more prosperous by owning companies that laid people off, raising prices, and cashing in on government bailouts. They owned the companies from which we bought food, mortgages, and electricity. The system isn’t designed to reward labor but to reward the people who profit from it.
Trillions of dollars in stimulus money flooded the market. Some of it went to everyday people, but most of it—directly or indirectly—ended up in the pockets of those who already had more money than they could ever spend. And just like that, the most significant wealth transfer in modern history was complete.
Your Wealth Didn’t Vanish—It Was Transferred Upward
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the government injected massive cash into the economy to prevent total collapse. And let’s be clear—that was the right move. Despite all the hand-wringing about inflation on the news, people needed money to survive.
But then, when workers didn’t immediately rush back to low-paying jobs, the rich threw a tantrum. Suddenly, they claimed that the government had “overstimulated” the economy—suggesting that people were so flush with cash that they just decided to stop working.
You’re not struggling because of bad luck or bad budgeting. You’re struggling because the rich own everything—and they’re making sure you own nothing.
Like most economic takes from the ultra-wealthy, this was a complete lie. Yes, increasing the money supply can contribute to inflation, but this kind of inflation is easy to manage. You can pull money back out of the economy through taxation or adjustments to monetary policy. The real problem wasn’t too much money—it was that, for once, regular people had a tiny bit of breathing room, and billionaires didn’t like it.
Here’s how they pulled off the biggest wealth heist in modern history:
We Pay Them for Everything
The rich don’t make money by working. They make money because they own everything, and because they own everything, we’re forced to pay them for everything.
- They own our homes → We pay rent.
- They own the businesses where we shop → We pay for goods and services.
- They own the farms and energy companies → We pay them every time we eat or turn on the lights.
- They own the banks → We pay them interest when we borrow money.
They Raise Prices—Because They Can
Now, here’s where it gets worse. Since they own everything, they set the prices. And what do they do? Raise them.
- Housing is unaffordable. That’s because investors buy homes and turn them into overpriced rentals.
- Grocery prices are ridiculous. That’s because big corporations own the farms, the processing plants, and the grocery chains.
- Energy bills keep rising. That’s because the same handful of companies own the power plants, oil refineries, and gas pipelines.
And when everything gets more expensive, what do we do? We pay them more, and now they have us blaming immigrants.
They Loan Us Money—And Make Us Pay Them Back With Interest
Since prices are rising faster than wages, most people can’t keep up. But instead of fixing the problem, the rich found another way to profit: debt.
- Can’t afford a home? Here, take out a mortgage—and pay them interest for 30 years.
- Struggling with everyday expenses? Just put it on a credit card—and pay them interest forever.
- Want to get an education? Take out student loans—and keep paying them long after you graduate.
So, we pay them for necessities, and when we can’t afford those things, we borrow from them—and pay them even more in interest.
The End Result?
Every year, the rich own more because they’re constantly collecting our money. Every year, we own less because we’re constantly paying them for necessities. And it gets worse. The more money they collect, the more they buy up assets—houses, land, businesses—making it even harder for the rest of us to catch up.
Schumer and Fetterman Just Helped Keep This Rigged System in Place
So why does this all matter? Because instead of addressing these problems, our leaders keep making them worse. Schumer and Fetterman’s latest vote shows exactly where their priorities are. They passed a funding bill that keeps the government running but at the cost of cutting billions from social programs. Meanwhile, defense spending—where corporations and wealthy investors make billions in profits—keeps growing.
It’s Time to Face the Truth
You’re not struggling because of bad luck or bad budgeting. You’re struggling because the rich own everything—and they’re making sure you own nothing. And as long as our leaders keep protecting them, things will only worsen.
So the next time a politician tells you they’re fighting for you, ask them: What are they doing to take wealth and power away from the billionaire class?
And let’s be clear—Chuck Schumer is not the leader we need right now. Under his watch, Democrats failed to deliver real economic relief, leaving millions frustrated enough to turn to President Donald Trump. Under his leadership, the party keeps acting like taking the high road will somehow fix a rigged system. It won’t.
It’s time to fight back. And that starts with demanding new leadership—because Schumer has already shown us whose side he’s on.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular