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
public health
The Real Emergency Is Dirty Air and Higher Bills While Polluters Profit
When our government makes decisions about how we get power in our communities, they are also making decisions about whose health and wealth we protect; we should not have to pay the price while corporate polluters and data centers benefit.
Nov 02, 2026
$295 million; 200,000 kids with asthma.
That’s the cost of keeping a Michigan coal plant running after it was supposed to close. Now, customers across the Midwest are being forced to pick up the tab—in more ways than one.
Last year, the US Department of Energy (DOE) declared an emergency order to force a coal plant in West Olive to remain open past its scheduled closing. In September, a federal court ruled that this move was unlawful. By ordering the plant to stay open past its planned retirement, the Trump administration made Consumers Energy pay $295 million to keep it running—the equivalent of more than $615,000 per day passed on to consumer energy bills.
Let’s make sure we all fight for a Michigan where future generations can live, work, learn, pray, and play safely in clean air.
This is a story playing out across the country: Federal decisions are keeping power plants online and putting corporate profits over public health while driving up energy costs. Since May 2025, the Trump DOE has ordered seven fossil-fuel power plants in six states to remain open past their planned retirement.
When our government makes decisions about how we get power in our communities, they are also making decisions about whose health and wealth we protect. Our families should not have to pay the price while corporate polluters and data centers benefit. The Trump administration wants you to believe in fabricated emergencies in order to pay for rising energy costs—costs largely driven by the artificial intelligence data center buildout. But the real emergency is the cost we’re paying with our health, our wallets, and our future—the kind of cost that shows up on our utility bills and in countless doctor appointments, school absences, missed work days, and hospital visits.
Power plants are a major source of pollution, releasing dangerous greenhouse emissions and hazardous air pollutants like mercury, soot, and smog. Air pollution is a public health crisis in the United States that disproportionately affects people of color, and communities of color are more likely to live near power plants, and are most vulnerable to climate impacts. The US saw more deaths from air pollution in 2021 than any other high-income country.
That’s why we spend every day fighting for the right to clean air.
For decades, we have worked to connect environmental health protection with the values that guide our lives. Through the Green Door Initiative based in Detroit, statewide Michigan Green Muslims, and with the national Clean Air for the Long Haul coalition, we work with communities to put our values into practice—greening our schools, creating air monitoring and workforce development programs, and helping families understand the real costs and injustices of the energy systems around them.
This work begins with a simple understanding that caring for the environment is inseparable from caring for one another. The air we breathe does not stop at a neighborhood boundary, and pollution does not ask what we believe or what we look like before it enters our lungs. We all share the air around us, and we have a responsibility to protect it.
Decisions made in DC can feel removed, but their consequences reach our communities. Three days after the court ruled in Michigan, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the repeal of most of its 2024 carbon standards for power plants and proposed to rescind all remaining regulations that curb power plant pollution. This is part of a larger effort by the federal government to roll back over 30 clean air and climate protections. Once again, the administration’s polluter-first agenda is prioritizing financial benefits for big business while intentionally ignoring public health harms.
Closer to home, DTE, Michigan’s largest utility, has proposed new gas plants as it plans for much higher electricity demand, and watchdogs say data centers are driving that need. Michigan customers could be left to pay for polluting power plants that leave them with blackouts to feed energy-hungry and water-thirsty data centers instead.
We must demand better. Urge the Michigan Public Service Commission to reject new gas plants and retire existing coal plants on schedule. Submit a letter on EPA’s proposal to roll back the power plant standards. Explain who you are, where you live, and why clean air is a human right for you and your family. Every story makes a difference.
Let’s make sure we all fight for a Michigan where future generations can live, work, learn, pray, and play safely in clean air. That’s something worth investing in.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of COP31, 146 Scientists Urge UN to Declare Climate Change a Global Health Emergency
"The health harms of climate change are growing faster than the world's response to them, and in many cases even accelerating."
Oct 28, 2026
With less than two weeks to go until the 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP31, brings world leaders to Antalya, Türkiye to discuss the need to transition away from fossil fuels, nearly 150 international experts warned that climate change brought on by greenhouse gas emissions constitutes a "global health emergency" whose harms are accelerating.
The "2026 Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change," written by researchers at University College London and the World Health Organization (WHO) and published in The Lancet, tracks dozens of indicators that link climate change to public health, including drought, extreme hurricanes and flooding, and economic losses.
But one top indicator that planetary heating has caused a worsening public health crisis is the extreme heat that was blamed for more than 50,000 deaths across Europe this summer, and which could lead to 450,000 excess deaths in the coming months as the climate emergency is compounded by this year's "Super El Niño."
According to the report, annual average heat-related deaths have surged by nearly 36% since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, securing pledges from governments to draw down fossil fuel emissions, compared to the decade preceding the deal.
More than 70% of the 710,000 heat-related deaths recorded in 2023 were found to be attributed to climate change, and between 2016-23, 68% of the world's 540,800 heat-related deaths were linked to the warming planet. The previous decade, 55% of deaths caused by extreme heat were blamed on the climate emergency.
"These numbers point to a clear emergency," said climate health researcher Marina Romanello, the executive director of the Lancet Countdown. "The risks become even more profound when you consider how different hazards interact and compound. At the same time, drought is spreading, and the world is swinging to water extremes, some drying out, while others are flooding."
"Progress has been too slow, too small, and isn't reaching those who need it most."
The report was published less than two months after a glacial collapse killed at least 1,000 people in Nepal and Tibet as it sent sudden extreme flooding down a mountain into a number of towns.
Türkiye, where COP31 is set to begin on November 9, was one place where massive wildfires spread rapidly this summer, while hundreds of thousands of people in Spain and France were also displaced by fast-moving blazes.
And in August, more than 5,000 square miles of forest burned in the Northwest Territories in Canada, sparking public health concerns when smoke drifted thousands of miles south to the continental United States.
"A decade after the Paris Agreement, our findings are unambiguous: The health harms of climate change are growing faster than the world's response to them, and in many cases even accelerating," said Romanello.
Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, head of the climate change and health unit at WHO, said the report "demonstrates that climate action is a health intervention. Cleaner energy, stronger health systems and early warning systems are saving lives today. As countries prepare for COP31, placing health at the center of climate policies can help protect communities, strengthen resilience, and deliver immediate benefits for people’s health and wellbeing."
The 146 scientists who authored the report noted that strides have been made in some countries in expanding clean energy infrastructure, passing health protection regulations, and preparing health systems for climate-related crises and conditions.
But in the US, the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, the Trump administration has blocked renewable energy projects and rolled back regulations meant to reduce people's exposure to harmful emissions.
"Progress has been too slow, too small, and isn't reaching those who need it most," said Romanello. "That is why we are calling for climate change to be formally recognized as a global health emergency, with health placed at the center of every climate decision."
The report was released a week after the UN Environment Program warned that achieving the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial temperatures is no longer possible, and that world leaders must now focus efforts on ensuring the overshoot is as short-lived as possible.
In the Lancet Countdown, the researchers called on the UN to declare that climate change is a public health emergency of international concern, which could require an international response.
"Priorities," said WHO, "include accelerating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, increasing support for adaptation, and expanding investments that strengthen health system resilience."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Former Top GOP Strategist Says It's 'Unimaginable' That US Won't Have Medicare for All Within 20 Years
"This is just a matter of how long are we going to delay this?”
Oct 26, 2026
A prominent former Republican political strategist said Monday that he believes it's just a matter of time before the United States adopts a Medicare for All universal healthcare system, citing the popularity of the program for older Americans across the political spectrum.
"Close your eyes and think about what will America be like in 20 years," Stuart Stevens—a senior strategist for Mitt Romney's failed 2012 presidential campaign—said during an MS NOW panel discussion hosted by Katy Tur. "It is unimaginable we will not have a national health plan."
"We're already the only Western country that doesn't," Stevens noted. "And this is just a matter of how long are we going to delay this?"
" Medicare is wildly popular," he said. "So you can see what the appeal of Medicare for All is."
"Why shouldn't everybody have Medicare?" Stevens asked. "I mean, it's the wealthiest country in the history of the world."
Stevens noted that the prospect of universal healthcare is "getting a tremendous response," even "from people who aren't exactly on the far left."
"So I think this is an issue that's changing," he added.
Responding to Stevens comments, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told Common Dreams that Medicare for All will ultimately happen in the United States "because it is not just a moral imperative but makes economic sense," as study after study has shown.
"It's what will truly reduce the cost of our system," Khanna said.
A KFF survey released earlier this month found that 66% of Americans favor Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the proposal. Support included 84% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 34% of Republicans—up from just 21% of Republicans in 2020.
A separate Axios-Ipsos poll, also published this month, found that 43% of Americans supported the proposal, compared with just 24% opposed, while 21% of Republicans backed it.
Multiple studies have shown that Medicare for All would save lives—and money. Most recently, researchers at Yale University estimated that implementing such a system would save over 114,000 lives annually while reducing healthcare expenditures by more than $1 billion per year.
Stevens' comments came as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—a possible 2028 presidential candidate—said his party needs to pursue Medicare for All if it succeeds in winning control of the Senate next week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blatant Hypocrisy': Trump Signs Executive Order on Women’s Health—While Attacking Women's Health
"This is an attempt to change the headlines, not women’s lives.”
Oct 19, 2026
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to promote women's health. But advocates say it's an example of "blatant hypocrisy" after his administration slashed healthcare access and medical research funding.
The initiative, promoted by First Lady Melania Trump, establishes a new Women's Health Division within the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a White House task force to advance research into conditions disproportionately affecting women, like heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and endometriosis.
During a speech on Monday, Trump said the task force "will mobilize the entire federal government to coordinate action focused on improving women's health." He added that it would be led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom he said "has been fantastic" even though he’s "a little different."
Critics were quick to point out that the order doesn’t provide any new research funding and that the Trump administration has canceled nearly half a billion dollars in NIH research funding, some of which supported research into the very diseases the order mentions.
Following years of growth in women's health research, a Washington Post analysis found that under Kennedy, the number of competitively funded NIH research projects mentioning women fell by 31% in 2025, amid the administration's crusade against so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
In April, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)—who faces a tough reelection campaign—criticized these cuts, saying that "the administration's emphasis on canceling diversity-related grants has resulted in less research aimed at women's health."
The new order also revokes two Biden-era directives on women's health research, which had helped secure nearly $1 billion in funding. Trump's order provides no additional research funding. It also does not specify what will happen to the existing funds.
"Women’s health has long been ignored as a federal priority, and while we agree that steps must be taken to close disparities in women’s healthcare, it’s hard not to point out the blatant hypocrisy of this unfunded order coming from an administration that is actively decimating healthcare access for women," said Dorianne Mason, senior director of health equity and contraceptive access at the National Women's Law Center (NWLC).
"From the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s cuts to Medicaid and the defunding of Planned Parenthood, to gutting the federal Office of Minority Health and slashing funding for women’s health research, this administration has made it clear that it doesn’t actually care about women’s healthcare needs, despite what this weak executive order attempts to convey," she added.
Last year, Trump signed a GOP budget law that cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid—a program that finances maternity care, reproductive healthcare, as well as routine health services for around 39 million low-income women.
Under Kennedy, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has rescinded federal guidance protecting emergency abortion access and launched a medical review that could restrict access to abortion pills.
“With RFK Jr. at the HHS helm, millions of women are paying more for healthcare and have less access to services they need,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care. “Secretary Kennedy has tried to scrap any research grant or program that dares to fix women’s health disparities—and disproportionately fired women doctors and career scientists en masse. He’s fought tooth and nail to restrict access to abortion medication even when the lives and health of women depend on it, including patients dealing with a horrific ectopic pregnancy."
Polls show that Trump and Republicans are performing dismally among women. According to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll released Sunday, just 30% of women said they approved of Trump’s job performance, and 61% wanted Democrats to control Congress.
Noting that the midterm elections were just weeks away, Mason said Trump's announcement of a women's health initiative "is an attempt to change the headlines, not women’s lives.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Toxic Betrayal: Report Details How Trump Duped His MAHA Base by Appeasing Corporate Interests
The MAHA movement "reminded the American public of the dangers of toxic chemicals in our air and water... But then the Trump administration either did nothing—or gave industry permission to pollute more.”
Oct 19, 2026
It's been seven months since more than 30 leaders of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement told the Trump administration that they were losing patience, and demanded to see evidence that the US Environmental Protection Agency took seriously millions of Americans' concerns about toxic "forever chemicals" and microplastics.
"MAHA is a mandate, not a marketing campaign," the advocates told EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, calling for an end to both corporate-friendly loopholes in regulations and the "revolving door" that saw chemical lobbyists hired by the agency tasked with regulating the industry.
But on Monday, the government watchdog Public Citizen revealed that 20 out of 21 environmental chemicals that the White House pledged to address in its May 2025 "MAHA Report" have been subject to less, not more, regulation under the Trump administration.
For nine of the chemicals, including the carcinogenic herbicide atrazine, mercury, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—often called forever chemicals—President Donald Trump and his top officials have loosened public health regulations.
For 10 of them, the administration has taken none of the action promised in the MAHA Report, and in the case of the cancer-causing herbicide glyphosate, Trump issued an executive order not only endorsing the use of the chemical but mandating its production—a year after Bayer, the parent company of the chemical firm that uses glyphosate in popular weedkiller Roundup, donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural campaign.
Public Citizen found just one substance, microplastics, for which the administration has "taken any step toward regulation, and at best it was a baby step"—announcing in April that microplastics may be considered for regulation in the future and that the government would study measuring and removing them from the human body.
The report identifies the lifted limits on forever chemicals, loosened regulations on air pollution, and action on glyphosate as "among the most egregious betrayals" of the MAHA movement that helped elect Trump.
"These examples show how the Trump administration’s retreat on chemicals in the environment is failing to keep Americans healthy," reads the report.
Despite the warning from MAHA leaders earlier this year, Public Citizen research director Peter Whoriskey wrote, the administration's conduct has shown that "MAHA is worse than an empty slogan. It’s a sham."
Nearly two years into Trump's second term in office—despite the fact that MAHA leader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the president's secretary of health and human services—key regulatory posts have been filled by former industry lobbyists and officials, such as David Fotouhi, who as the deputy administrator of the EPA is the agency’s second-highest official.
During his legal career, Fotouhi defended the company International Paper when it was sued for contaminating the environment with forever chemicals.
Eight out of 10 top leadership roles at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and the Office of Air and Radiation are filled by "officials, lawyers, and lobbyists who previously worked for chemical oil, chemical, and agriculture companies," reads the report.
"For years, Kennedy, like other leaders in the MAHA movement, accused federal regulators of being controlled by corporate lobbyists and failing to protect Americans from dangerous industrial and agricultural chemicals. Accordingly, they campaigned to curtail corporate influence at the EPA and other federal agencies," wrote Whoriskey.
But with Kennedy at his side, "the Trump administration has not only accommodated industry demands but appointed industry lobbyists and other officials to senior positions in the EPA."
The report also takes aim at persistent claims by Trump administration officials, including in the MAHA Report, that they will use "gold standard science" to evaluate environmental dangers.
The White House has made that all but impossible by disbanding the Office of Research and Development, which has conducted research on the impact of chemicals on humans, the report says.
The government's top air pollution research facility in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was also shut down, while all the members of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee were ousted.
“The MAHA Report reminded the American public of the dangers of toxic chemicals in our air and water,” said Whoriskey in a statement. “It was described as a ‘call to action.’ But then the Trump administration either did nothing—or gave industry permission to pollute more.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Something Else to Worry About: Biological Weapons
Recent reports that a young woman working in a Russian biolab became ill and died echo Annie Jacobsen’s new book, Biological War: A Scenario. How concerned should we be?
Oct 17, 2026
A few months ago, I ordered a pre-publication copy of Annie Jacobsen’s new non-fiction book, Biological War: A Scenario, which followed on from her excellent book, Nuclear War: A Scenario—not because I enjoy reading about existential risks, but because I’m an information seeker and feel that it’s important to stay informed. But when it arrived a few weeks later, in spite of having written an opinion piece about her nuclear book, entitled, “Why We Avoid Thinking About Nuclear War—and Why We Shouldn’t,” after seeing the frightening cover illustration of men in hazmat suits, I stashed it on the bookshelf of my study rather than reading it—for the same reasons I discussed in my earlier piece: I didn’t want to know!
But after the recent reports of a biolab accident in Russia, I retrieved it from the bookshelf and read it in two days.
The “scenario” in the book is that of a “biological weapons lab accident,” where a scientist working to modify pneumonic plague into a deadly biological weapon experiences remorse and tries to destroy it. But the small fire he lights causes an explosion that propels the Yersinia pestis bacteria (which causes the plague) into the atmosphere. In the process, he becomes infected with his weaponized pneumonic plague, although he doesn’t yet know it.
Although most of us cannot directly influence negotiations about strengthening the BWC, there are things that we can do to support such efforts and to lessen the increasingly grave dangers that confront us.
The next morning, he goes to an Orthodox church to confess where, by coughing in the midst of confession, he infects the priest, as well as the next person in line—a pre-med foreign exchange student, who is back in this small Russian town visiting family—before returning to the US shortly thereafter, where he is studying and doing volunteer work with homeless people. The student subsequently infects scores on Skid Row, who, in turn, infect the first responders who come to help them and, ultimately, the whole city of Los Angeles.
Following his confession, the scientist goes into the woods to shoot himself but collapses from the symptoms of plague. He is found by men on an international hunting trip, who administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and carry him back to their hunting lodge, where he is collected by officials. After dining together, using the same sauna and steam bath, and driving to the airport in the same van, seven of the hunters board flights to six of the world’s seven continents, while another goes off on a sea cruise—spreading pneumonic plague on their flights and sea voyage—and ultimately around the world.
In the real-world scenario, reported on October 2, Darya Shipilova, a 28-year old laboratory technician working in an “Anti-Plague Institute” in Irkutsk, Siberia died, according to Russian officials, of “a pneumonia of unknown etiology.” A Russian news agency reported that she had broken a test tube containing live bacteria of the pneumonic plague pathogen, leading to widespread speculation that she had, indeed, died of pneumonic plague.
These concerns were reinforced by reports that Russian health authorities imposed sweeping quarantine restrictions on the lab where she worked, the hospital where she died, and other nearby hospitals. Neighbors also reported that workers in protective suits and gas masks repeatedly disinfected the building where she lived, telling residents that it was “for cockroaches,” although the building has no cockroaches. More recently, Russia’s health agency asserted that the plague was not detected in follow-up tests of “thousands of people in the region.”
The overall opacity (a familiar playbook for crises in Russia) of Russian public health officials in responding to urgent requests for more information from the World Health Organization, the US, and other governments led to considerable disquiet around the world.
When asked if her death was related to a bioweapon, President Donald Trump responded, not very reassuringly, “We don’t think so.” He also acknowledged the similarities in how Chinese officials handled Covid-19 before it became a global pandemic: “China didn’t say much, and Russia is not saying much either.”
The Biological Weapons Convention Was Supposed to Prevent This, Then Came the Secret Soviet Biological Weapons Program
The 1925 Geneva Protocol banned the use of biological weapons, but not their development or possession. Although ratified by a number of countries in the 1920s and 30s, it wasn’t ratified by the US until 1975.
After 27 years of a US biological weapons program, President Richard Nixon unexpectedly announced on November 25, 1969 that the US would unilaterally end its offensive biological weapons program, stating, “The United States shall renounce the use of lethal biological agents and weapons, and all other methods of biological warfare… [and] confine its biological research to defensive measures such as immunization and safety measures.” Over the next years, US biological weapons stocks were destroyed with the process completed in May 1972.
Subsequently, the United Nations Conference on Disarmament negotiated “The Biological Weapons Convention” (BWC), the first multilateral treaty to ban an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. It was opened for signature on April 10, 1972 and signed by the US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union the same day. It entered into force on March 26, 1975. Currently, it has 189 State Parties and four Signatory States, with only four States outside the Convention.
Because it was the first of its kind, however, the BWC lacked the important monitoring and verification procedures that were later included in the Chemical Weapons Convention. There are no mandatory verified declarations of biological facilities or activities; no inspections or site visits to verify compliance; no international organization to oversee implementation; and no penalties for non-compliance, although complaints can be made to the UN Security Council (which are subject to veto by any of the five Permanent Members). Only four staff are involved in its tiny Implementation Support Unit, compared with over 500 for the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In spite of the Soviet Union becoming a signatory to the BWC in 1972, the USSR continued to covertly develop and produce offensive biological weapons in what became the world’s largest and most sophisticated biological weapons program, with 40-50 biological research facilities scattered around the country, employing 65,000 people. The aim was to create “exotic biological weapons using techniques made possible by recombinant DNA.” Recombinant DNA, also called genetic engineering, involves joining the DNA from two entirely different species to make new pathogens.
Not detecting this vast biological weapons program was one of the biggest intelligence failures of the Cold War as it was totally unknown in the West until 1989, when a Soviet scientist, Vladimir Pasechnik, defected, shocking the British Intelligence Services and the CIA with details of the massive program and its deadly stockpiles. They learned that the Soviets had “genetically engineered a strain of Yersinia pestis to resist antibiotics” and had also stockpiled vast volumes of other deadly pathogens in the labs’ freezers, such as smallpox, anthrax, ebola, Marburg virus disease, and many others—all weaponized to kill populations in the most diabolical manner.
The terrifying extent of this biowarfare program was later confirmed by other defecting Soviet scientists, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In January 1992, Boris Yeltsin admitted that he knew about the program and pledged to close down the institutes, retire their directors, and ask for international inspections. But the two generals he appointed to carry out this mission resisted his orders. In 1992, a Trilateral Agreement was signed by Russia with the United States and the United Kingdom “promising to end biological weapons programs and convert facilities to benevolent purposes, but compliance with the agreement—and the fate of the former Soviet bio-agents and facilities—is still mostly undocumented.”
The State Department’s 2025 compliance report states: “The United States assesses that Russia maintains an offensive biological warfare program and is in violation of its obligations under Article I and II of the BWC… Key military biological facilities associated with the Soviet offensive program remain, inaccessible and not transparent, nearly 30 years after Yeltsin’s decree.”
Jacobsen’s Book Is Based on the Secret Soviet Biological Weapons Program
The latter part of Jacobsen’s book deals with the breakdown of law and order, as mass death and panic take hold and cause chaos. Ultimately, the president deploys the Insurrection Act, whereby military forces attempt to establish martial law for the first time in American history. Just as they are about to release the strategic national stockpiles of medicine, scientists at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease receive their first bacterial specimens (from the infected hunter who landed in Dallas and died in a local hospital). Microbiologists in biocontainment suits examine the specimens, and plague cultures are grown and used to test for antibiotic resistance in small animals. Simultaneously, microbiologists extract DNA from the specimen and feed it into a high-speed sequencing machine to get a genetic fingerprint of the pathogen.
What they discover is appalling—the organism has been bioengineered and “looks alarmingly like a 21st century version of something Russian scientists worked on during the Soviet-era secret biological weapons programs.” It is a combination of two pathogens, one concealed within another, referred to as a “bobby-trap bio-weapon,” whereby, after a person becomes infected with pneumonic plague and takes antibiotics as soon as possible under the assumption they will be cured, the antibiotics trigger the chimera weapon’s bobby-trap mechanism—in this fictional case, the Venezuelan equine encephalitis gene which has been covertly spliced into the Yersinia pestis genome to cause acute neurological symptoms and death. As a result, there is no cure.
The book is not meant to create unnecessary fear. It is meant to make clear what is now possible, and what is at stake. The tools to engineer life are advancing faster than the rules that govern them. This gap is where existential danger lives. The point is not panic; the point is pressure. To demand guardrails, oversight, and accountability before the science outruns our ability to control it. Before we set something irreversible in motion.
Although the real-life situation in Siberia will hopefully not turn out to be the same as in Annie Jacobsen’s book, it should cause us to take notice.
Attempts to Improve the Biological Weapons Convention
Serious attempts have been made in the past to strengthen the BWC but without success. An Ad Hoc Group labored from 1995 to 2001 to create a protocol where states would submit declarations of treaty-relevant facilities and activities to an international body that would conduct routine on-site visits, as well as challenge inspections of suspect facilities and activities. But the draft was rejected by the US under President George W. Bush, who argued that it could harm US national security. Nothing more happened for many years.
Another attempt is currently underway, although progress is slow. A Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Working Group was established at the 2022 BWC Review Conference and has been working steadily over the last four years to come up with the text of draft recommendations before the 2027 BWC Review Conference. At their August meeting this year, 90.6% of the text had been agreed, although fundamental disagreements over verification frameworks, transfer controls, and funding remain—and tensions are high.
The chair of the Working Group has highlighted the urgency, arguing that the sudden convergence of artificial intelligence and biology is “creating new security challenges,” warning that a gap “may emerge between these rapidly advancing capabilities and our collective ability to understand their governance and prevent their misuse.”
What We Can Do
Although most of us cannot directly influence negotiations about strengthening the BWC, there are things that we can do to support such efforts and to lessen the increasingly grave dangers that confront us.
We can be sure to vote in the upcoming midterms for Democratic candidates, who have been more likely to support regulatory controls in Congress, as well as multilaterally. We can support these candidates with financial contributions and by working on their campaigns to ensure that they get elected, since time is short. Once elected, we can strive to persuade them to urgently implement appropriate policies.
After all, who wants human extinction? Presumably, none of us—no matter how jaded we may have become.
We can educate ourselves about the threats by reading widely, including Jacobsen’s excellent books, as well as opinion pieces on the subject, such as ones I’ve written on AI and nuclear weapons. We can do online research to identify, join, financially support, and work with others in public advocacy organizations against threats that are of particular concern to us. We can attend protest rallies and discuss our concerns with friends, encouraging them to also become active, so that we can develop a large public constituency to combat these extreme dangers.
Just a couple of days ago, on October 11, The Lancet Commission on 21st Century Global Threats to Health highlighted 17 major threats to human health over the next 75 years, asserting that, “Malicious use of AI, including bioweapons, and nuclear conflict with nuclear famine [caused by nuclear winter] carry risks of extinction in the next 75 years.” There are so many existential dangers to confront that it can sometimes feel overwhelming and lead us to a state of helplessness when what we need, instead, is a pro-active approach that will foster resourcefulness.
By facing up to our natural tendency to avoid frightening information and by confronting our fears head-on, we can gain a true sense of self-efficacy and social responsibility. In this way, we can save those we love; ensure that future generations thrive; preserve the rich cultural heritage we have created; protect the magnificent array of other species on Earth; and safeguard our beautiful, one-of-a-kind planet—from all of these truly insane and, frankly, evil machinations—often designed by normal people, who have been seduced by competitive processes; rationales that “everyone is doing it”; lucrative remuneration; lapse of conscience; and bad ideas into creating conditions for the most dystopian futures imaginable.
As Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister, former president and CEO of the International Crisis Group, and co-chair of the Commission on Nuclear Proliferation and Disarmament has recently commented with regard to the nuclear threat, “It is up to those of us who passionately believe in both the possibility and necessity of a nuclear weapon free world, however disappointed and frustrated we may be right now, to get out there and continue to campaign our hearts out for it.” I suggest that we extend his call to action to all the existential threats we face. After all, who wants human extinction? Presumably, none of us—no matter how jaded we may have become. We must assume responsibility for the continuation of our kind and choose human survival.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Americans Face Affordability Crisis, Poll Reaffirms 'Supporting Medicare for All Is Not Radical'
“Healthcare is one of the significant ways that people experience economic pressure every day,” said Ipsos' president.
Oct 13, 2026
Yet another poll, this one released on Tuesday, shows significant support for Medicare for All as Americans grapple with rising healthcare costs and the Trump administration and congressional Republicans target federal programs upon which tens of millions of people rely.
A plurality—43%—of respondents to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index said they support replacing private health insurance with a government-run Medicare for All system, compared with 24% who oppose the idea. Another 32% were unsure, leaving supporters outnumbering opponents by nearly two to one. Two-thirds of respondents also backed increased federal spending to reduce healthcare costs.
Respondents' views on Medicare for All are divided along party lines, with a majority of Democrats (62%) and a plurality of independents (47%) supporting the proposal, while a majority of Republicans (52%) oppose it.
Again: Supporting Medicare for All is not Radical — opposing it is. We can’t afford NOT to do it. #MedicareForAllNOW www.axios.com/2026/10/13/a...
[image or embed]
— The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social) October 13, 2026 at 5:24 AM
The most commonly cited reason people said they oppose Medicare for All is fear that the quality of care would be inferior to that offered by private health insurance (38%), followed by concern that the program would be too expensive for taxpayers (22%), and that the federal government should not be involved in providing healthcare (21%). Supporters were not asked why they favor Medicare for All.
The survey also revealed deepening distrust of political leaders on healthcare issues. Just 20% of respondents said that they trusted President Donald Trump for health-related information, down from 31% in March 2025, while only 25% trusted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The poll also found that 49% would be less likely to support a candidate who received money from pharmaceutical company political action committees.
"Healthcare is one of the significant ways that people experience economic pressure every day," Mallory Newall, Ipsos senior vice president for US public affairs, told Axios. She noted that while many Americans still "have questions" about Medicare for All, the current level of support for the proposal is "noteworthy—and it is not solely driven by members of the Democratic Party."
Newall said that even if candidates "don't call it Medicare for All," expanding federal healthcare programs so that they cover more people "is a message that can connect with voters" as they prepare to cast their ballots in next month's midterm elections.
The stakes extend beyond Medicare for All. Republicans' sweeping 2025 budget law enacted the biggest cuts to Medicaid in the program's six-decade history, while enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits expired at the beginning of 2026, threatening higher costs for millions of enrollees.
Progressives have cited these and other developments to argue that the private insurance system leaves working-class families vulnerable to corporate profiteers and political attacks.
A separate survey released last week by the health policy research organization KFF found that 66% of Americans favor Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the issue a decade ago. While 84% of Democrats and 72% of Independents polled backed Medicare for All, 66% of Republican respondents opposed the proposal.
According to a study published in August by researchers at Yale University, shifting to a Medicare for All-type system would save more than 114,000 lives and around $1 trillion annually in the US. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has cited the study while promoting his Medicare for All Act.
"Do not tell me we cannot afford Medicare for All," he said at the time of the study's publication. "What we cannot afford is a broken healthcare system based on greed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democracy Means More Life, But Not to Trump and Company
The administration’s agenda for the last two years is built around the concept of less access to life. It has committed billions of taxpayer dollars to this mission.
Oct 03, 2026
It’s such a simple idea—that our nation was founded to provide its citizens and new arrivals with more life. Our unique form of government, grounded in the notion of self-determination, explicitly seeks to expand life possibilities for more people so that they might realize gifts granted at birth. Why didn’t this occur to me sooner? After all, “life” so clearly precedes “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence.
To our detriment, we are now living through a period where the person we elected president, whose predecessors largely upheld the nation’s founding principles, seeks to bury its most basic intent. The administration’s agenda for the last two years is built around the concept of less access to life. It has committed billions of taxpayer dollars to this mission. When superimposed on their repetitive attempts to disempower women, people of color, and ethnic minorities, the four efforts that follow cap a prolonged assault on life:
The allocation of vast resources to expel several hundred thousand people from the country, sidestepping their due process rights. All emigrated to fulfill more of life’s possibilities in safer and more nurturing surroundings. A strong majority have bolstered the nation’s economic might and cultural richness. Read this Guardian article for a full grasp of the horrifying actions done in our name and paid for with taxpayer dollars. For those expelled, life’s possibilities have been lessened. Ours too are diminished, as their contributions are subtracted from community life.
Preserving an entitlement to more life in all its various forms inspires a cause that warrants universal backing.
The denial of science-based findings regarding climate disruption and positive health measures. This translates into many more citizens having fewer life options. On the climate front, the administration has contended that more oil enhances our lives. The truth is that more oil equals less life. Profligate burning of it disrupts the proper functioning of the atmosphere, sickens more people, and causes extreme weather that results in severe dislocations and needless deaths. At the same time, disregarding years of learning regarding preventive health measures and positive treatment protocols shrinks the chances of more of us for a full life.
The constriction of public discourse by curtailing press freedom and criminalizing constitutionally protected citizen dissent. The upshot is that the breadth and depth of the field of ideas available to us as citizens is considerably constrained. Life’s richness is fed with bursts of fresh air, not with heavy doses of government suppression. When the range of the possible is narrowed, there is less of life’s potential.
The direction of public resources in support of the fortunes of a few extremely wealthy people. This distortion shuts off opportunities for more citizens to spread their economic wings in pursuit of a better life. The so-called “American Dream” has become a mirage of unrealizable expectations for 90% of the population. Ironically, it was the throttling of these expectations that stoked the anger and resentment of a plurality of our fellow citizens and led to the election of a person committed to limiting life chances for millions.
These acts, designed to deprive constituents of more life, are evidence of a transgression more egregious than all the others this administration has perpetrated. It demands immediate attention and redress.
Strategically speaking, fighting for more life is easier to grasp than fighting for democracy, The latter asked people to stand together in defense of an abstract idea. For some it had partisan overtones. In contrast, preserving an entitlement to more life in all its various forms inspires a cause that warrants universal backing. It would be sufficient for undertaking a mass movement fueled by nonviolent direct action.
Who of us, regardless of political affiliation, would advocate for less life? This is the cause for which we must fight now—to regain the ground we have lost, and to realize even more fully the primary intent of the Declaration of Independence: more life.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and RFK Jr.'s Gutting of CDC 'Should Terrify Everyone,' Advocates Say
“This is not normal," said the president of the union representing CDC workers. "What we are witnessing is the dismantling of public health infrastructure our country relies on."
Sep 28, 2026
Reporting published over the weekend detailing the "zombified" state of the preeminent public health institution in the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sparked deep alarm among advocates and experts, who warned that President Donald Trump's gutting of the agency leaves the country badly unequipped to handle future emergencies.
"The grim state of affairs at the Trump CDC should terrify everyone," Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement on Monday in response to reporting by The New York Times, which shows how Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other administration officials have made the CDC "a skeleton of the powerhouse it was."
The Times noted that, as of May 2026, the CDC had 30% fewer employees than it did before the Trump administration initiated mass layoffs at the agency and across the federal government last year.
There is also a leadership vacuum at the agency, according to the Times, which reported that "only one of the 11 center directors from March 2025 remains at the agency" and "most of the other centers are being run by acting directors, some of whom were elevated from jobs one or two levels below." The current CDC director is Dr. Erica Schwartz, who "has made no public statements about the importance of childhood vaccines or corrected misinformation from her boss, Mr. Kennedy," the Times observed, even as recorded measles cases reach levels not seen in decades.
"Interviews with more than 30 current and former employees reveal the agency is now tightly controlled by Mr. Kennedy and his associates, and its scientists are finding it increasingly difficult to do their jobs effectively," the newspaper reported.
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who headed the CDC's respiratory disease center before resigning in protest last year, told the Times that the Trump CDC "is not acting like how an agency like that should act." In his resignation letter, posted to social media in August 2025, Daskalakis warned that "the nation’s health security is at risk and is in the hands of people focusing on ideological self-interest."
According to the Times, the CDC's center for emerging and zoonotic diseases, which manages Ebola and hantavirus, "now has nearly 300 fewer employees than in March 2025, and the respiratory disease center has lost nearly 200—about 17% in each case."
"RFK Jr. has gutted the office that works on dangerous, killer emerging diseases," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote over the weekend. "Disaster in waiting."
Woodhouse of Protect Our Care said Monday that "after a catastrophic global pandemic followed by a record-breaking measles crisis, the CDC should be better prepared than ever."
"Instead, the agency keeps getting caught with its pants down thanks to Donald Trump and RFK Jr.’s self-sabotage and war on science," said Woodhouse. "Investigations are coming, but resignations should come much sooner.”
The Times reporting coincided with new data from American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 2883, which represents CDC workers. The union said the CDC has lost over 3,800 employees during Trump's second term, nearly a third of the agency's total workforce.
“This is not normal," said Yolanda Jacobs, president of AFGE Local 2883. "What we are witnessing is the dismantling of public health infrastructure our country relies on."
"CDC workers have endured eighteen months of chaos and confusion, from detrimental layoffs and RIFs, to being left in a constant state of panic about job security. This turmoil cannot continue," Jacobs added. "Our workers, who have dedicated their lives to serving the American people, deserve better. Our country deserves an agency that is fully prepared to protect the public’s health within and outside its own doors. Protecting our nation’s public health workers also protects our nation’s public health.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elevating Data Center Activism for the 2028 Election
To fight back against Big Tech, the movement must articulate a clear diagnosis of the problem, adapt to changing political landscapes, translate early wins into lasting policy, and forge broad alliances.
Sep 13, 2026
As data centers sprout across the nation, a new movement is emerging to challenge the tech companies building them. The rapid spread of these facilities raises critical environmental, health, economic, and political questions, positioning health, climate, and social justice activists to play a central role in elevating these questions for the 2028 elections.
To date, the movement against data centers has made impressive gains. In the first four months of 2026, local opposition disrupted at least 75 data center projects worth approximately $130 billion. In June 2026, more than 200 advocacy organizations urged Congress to reject legislation fast-tracking the financing and permitting for large AI data centers. By July, New York State Gov. Kathy Hochul imposed a statewide moratorium on new hyperscale data centers—a model other states and cities are considering. National groups such as Food and Water Watch, the NAACP, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Democratic Socialists of America have distributed resources to support local campaigns.
Public opposition has shifted dramatically alongside this activism. In August 2025, a poll of 4,000 Americans showed 43% supported having a data center built near their home. Just eight months later, in Spring 2026, support plummeted to 21%—a drop described by the pollster as “a scale of change in public opinion that I didn’t know was still possible in the US.”
However, the movement also faces significant headwinds. Big tech companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Open AI are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to support new data centers to meet AI’s growing computing demands. As Karen Hao explains in Empire of AI, tech owners believe being first and largest will ensure dominance, driving relentless expansion.
Data center and AI activists are raising core questions: Who should decide whether communities allow data centers? Who pays the long-term costs and reaps the benefits?
Earlier environmental movements received some support from presidents seeking environmental legacies, but President Donald Trump provided public subsidies enabling the AI industry to bypass opponents.
Despite widespread local opposition to data centers and bipartisan support for regulation, the movement lacks a comprehensive national narrative to counteract the industry claim that AI will solve all problems. To tell such a story, previous and current movements must articulate a clear diagnosis of the problem, adapt to changing political landscapes, translate early wins into lasting policy, and forge broad alliances. My analysis of past successes of health and environmental movements suggests five strategic pathways emerge for the data center movement.
Connect Concerns About Data Centers to Other Issues People Care About
Successful movements link distinct problems to create multiple paths into activism. The women’s movement brought together advocates for sexual and reproductive healthcare, women of color, working women, lesbians, and people with disabilities. This inclusive alliance built the power needed to expand access to abortion, ban pregnancy discrimination, and protect women from insurance industry bias. Even when differences among its supporters emerged, the movement’s unifying goals provided a framework for common action.
Data center activists have raised health, environmental, and social justice concerns: increasing air pollution, water depletion, and excess noise. One study estimates that by 2028, the annual public health costs of data center air pollution will reach $20 billion. Activists also recognize that data center expansion enables AI and tech companies to deepen surveillance, target harmful social media campaigns, and facilitate harms to mental health.
Organizers can build a unified constituency by addressing both immediate harms (unregulated construction) and systemic issues (AI expansion enriching billionaires at public expense).
Build Crosscutting Coalitions
Effective movements united diverse groups around shared economic and social interests. The Fight for $15 movement successfully raised the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour, in at least 68 cities, counties, and states, winning more than $150 billion in higher pay for more than 26 million workers. It united low-wage workers, unions with the resources to pay organizers, and activists from Black Lives Matter and #MeToo.
Data centers activists can replicate this coalition approach. They can link residents concerned about the impact of local data centers and workers and labor unions whose jobs will be displaced by the growth of AI. They can enlist advocates for democracy, social justice, and tax reform who object to the political influence and low taxes of tech billionaires.
Pursue Transitional and Transformative Goals
Movements frequently debate whether to emphasize immediate or long-term goals. In the movement for universal healthcare, organizers argued whether to support the Affordable Care Act as a step forward or to demand Medicare for All to reduce healthcare industry power.
Mark Hannay, from Metro New York Health Care for All, suggested a “both-and framework.” Metro fought for Medicare for All, but also for funding for New York City’s public hospitals and Medicaid and stronger regulation of the healthcare industry.
Data center and AI activists adopt this approach by pairing immediate demands—such as construction moratoria and stronger air and water protections—with long-term systemic reforms, including antitrust enforcement, elimination of corporate subsidies, and higher taxes on tech billionaires.
Use Multiple Strategies to Achieve Policy Goals
ACT UP, a leading force in the fight to get the government to respond more effectively and rapidly to the AIDS epidemic, used inside-outside, disruptive and conventional, and litigation and community organizing to achieve its goals. ACT UP found that multiple approaches increased pressure on the government to respond and mobilized more constituencies.
The data center movement has already used community organizing, demonstrations, litigation, legislation, and media campaigns to advance its goals. Maintaining this diversity, aligning its deployment to maximize impact, and developing a strategic plan for 2028 and beyond will help sustain momentum and drive policy wins.
Articulate a Vision
Enduring movements unite people around a vision grounded in shared values. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a world where character triumphed over skin color provide a moral vision for the civil rights movement. For more than a decade, environmental justice activists have proposed that all people have the right to environmental protections and a voice in shaping their communities’ environments. This expansive vision has enabled this movement to win local, state, and national policy changes and bring together environmental, climate, people of color, and women’s activists across the country.
Data center and AI activists are raising core questions: Who should decide whether communities allow data centers? Who pays the long-term costs and reaps the benefits? What role should voters—rather than tech industry executives—have in directing the future of AI?
By offering clear, practical answers and using the experiences of past activist campaigns, the growing data center-AI movement can put these questions on the nation’s electoral and political agenda. In doing so, they can become a powerful force for healthier, safer, and more just communities and a world where AI is used to benefit humanity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy