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.
Former US President Barack Obama addresses the virtual Democratic National Convention on August 19, 2020. (Photo: PBS News/YouTube Screengrab)
In the midst of a global pandemic and anti-racist insurrection, the 2020 Democratic National Convention has captured the nation's imagination. Despite being held virtually, key political figures such as Michelle and Barack Obama have delivered electrifying speeches. They have brought in even "moderate" Republicans to show this is no ordinary election but a concerted and collective defense of democracy in the face of Far-Right fascism.
Yet after the applause has died down, an unsettling reality begins to re-emerge. There is a troubling moral and political hypocrisy to these proceedings. How can a Party who is nominating the architect of the nation's mass incarceration claim to be the last best defense of its democracy? How can former Presidents who governed more for Wall Street than "Main Street" proclaim that they are our popular protectors? How can a Party that celebrates its military aggression around the world credibly portray themselves as deliverers of peace?
The answer may be the often repeated mantra that the Democrats are ultimately the "lesser evil". And confronted with Trump and his white nationalism this is a profound greater evil indeed. Yet the danger of these inspiring speeches goes beyond mere hypocrisy--behind their glittering words are a legitimate threat to democracy and progress.
Empty Democratic Rhetoric
The Democratic convention has been filled with soaring rhetoric about the existential dangers of Trump to US democracy. In a speech already being lauded as one for all times, former President Barack Obama gave a full throttled defense of the Republic while forcefully maintaining that it was uniquely under threat. He proclaimed, that while "we should also expect a president to be the custodian of this democracy" Trump represents "Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before."
"In place of an actual shared politics to resist the rapidly increasing creep of fascism at home and abroad, we are offered empty rhetoric and a history of broken progressive promises." Almost completely unnoticed though was that the vast majority of these offenses either occurred or were started in his administration. It was Obama who authorized putting families in privately profitable cages. It was Hillary Clinton who first publicly suggested separating families at the border to discourage would-be immigrants and asylum seekers. And lest not forget that this humanitarian crisis was largely caused by the Obama administration's support for an anti-democratic right-wing coup in Honduras. Or that he did little to stop the brutal repression of BLM protestors when they first arose in Ferguson. Or that he joked about the need to potentially privatize the post office and even unsuccessfully tried to appoint two officials to the USPS to do so. And the list goes on, so it goes.
Highlighting these similarities is not meant to downplay the danger of Trump and the movement he represents. Rather, it is to point out that the modern rise of authoritarian capitalism has been a bipartisan effort in the extreme. Even scarier, it is the supposed high mindedness and inspiring words that make this Democratic threat to democracy so hard to identify and effectively challenge.
In place of an actual shared politics to resist the rapidly increasing creep of fascism at home and abroad, we are offered empty rhetoric and a history of broken progressive promises. These stirring words may stave off the disaster of the Trump election in the short term but will little to ultimately save 21st-century democracy and may even put it in further jeopardy in the long run.
The "Obama Inspiration Syndrome"
The immediate response to these charges is the understandable desire to focus on defeating the urgent threat of Trump before dealing with the less pressing danger posed by the Democrats. And indeed, as a strategy, it is perhaps a legitimate though short-sighted one. The problem arises when we allow the inspiring rhetoric of these "moderates" to trick us into thinking they are part of the democratic solution to our systemic ills.
The risk is placing all our collective energy in stopping Trump and the Far Right. The mantra "anyone but Trump" reinforces the belief that he and his administration are solely and completely to blame for growing political repression and economic precarity. It is a perfect example of the right-wing originated but tragically accurate "Trump Derangement Syndrome". All the issues of racial capitalism are reduced to the flaws and faults of one evil man.
Yet this almost pathological hatred, however legitimate, is now mixed with a worrying case of "Obama Inspiration Syndrome". Here the former President is the epitome of all that is still good in our politics, nation, and world. He is the defender of our worsening climate, the protector of our decaying economy, the guardian of our crumbling democracy. No amount of evidence can seemingly convince his most fervent supporters that he and his Democratic establishment colleagues are anything but ethical and righteous. If Trump can do no right, then Obama can do no wrong.
What this "Democratic" demagoguery leads to is a bolstering of the very neoliberal corporate status quo that gave birth to Trump and his brand of twitter fuelled fascism in the first place. It is not surprising that the Convention was filled with "acceptable" Republicans. Or that only recently the Obama family has been seen cozying up to their friends in the Bush family. Suddenly, all that proceeded Trump--the Iraq War, the legalized torture policies, the Wall Street created financial crisis, the "prison-industrial" complex--are acceptable parts of a democratic society.
Going deeper, this plays into the broader attempt of Democrats to weaponize the threat of domestic fascism in support of global imperialism and militarism. The new "red scare" against Putin--whatever its facts or actual threat--is being used to re-legitimize the "deep state" NSA and CIA who are ironically responsible for subverting and overthrowing so many democracies around the world.
Inspiring Reaction
The Democrat's greatest fear, it seems, besides Trump are actual progressives. Instead of being embraced this growing diverse coalition of young people, working-class people, activists, and academics are constantly ridiculed and marginalized. Obama and Trump are thus each in their own ways inspiring reaction against the prospect of real systemic change that could reinvigorate and truly save our democracy.
"Obama and Trump are thus each in their own ways inspiring reaction against the prospect of real systemic change that could reinvigorate and truly save our democracy." The virulent combination of "The Trump Derangement Syndrome" and the "Obama Inspiration Syndrome" are different parts of the same political disease killing US democracy. The valorization of all things Democrat is the snake oil in place of a real cure. It is the sweet-sounding and emotionally rousing placebo that makes us feel better about the condition of our liberty and rights as they continue to pass away.
It is telling, therefore, in this age of supposed "cancel culture" and "political correctness" how Obama and his even more morally troubling predecessor Bill Clinton continue to be not only tolerated but downright celebrated. It is hard to imagine how drone bombing and actually presiding over a decrease in black wealth can be considered "woke" or even allowable. While Obama's words do not explicitly advocate racism or prejudice, they should be considered dangerous speech precisely for how they cover over and distract from his administration and Party's actual record.
The fundamental concern is that it is exactly this inspiring but dangerous speech that will make it difficult if not impossible to hold these "lesser evil" options politically accountable. Biden is already stepping back from his progressive concessions around health care and fossil fuels. He has stated that he too would deal harshly with left-wing protesters as well as proposing to actually increase funding for the police. And it was mere months ago that a majority of Democratic legislators approved once again massive military spending.
Democracy in the US and around the world is imperiled both by its proclaimed enemies and its supposed friends. The authoritarian of Trump is overt and must be resisted at all costs. However, in doing so, we should not be lulled into ignoring the subtler threats of those who are slowly destroying democracy even while singing its praises and pretending to be its greatest defenders. We must never forget, that it will take much more than inspiring speeches to save and expand our democracy.
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. |
In the midst of a global pandemic and anti-racist insurrection, the 2020 Democratic National Convention has captured the nation's imagination. Despite being held virtually, key political figures such as Michelle and Barack Obama have delivered electrifying speeches. They have brought in even "moderate" Republicans to show this is no ordinary election but a concerted and collective defense of democracy in the face of Far-Right fascism.
Yet after the applause has died down, an unsettling reality begins to re-emerge. There is a troubling moral and political hypocrisy to these proceedings. How can a Party who is nominating the architect of the nation's mass incarceration claim to be the last best defense of its democracy? How can former Presidents who governed more for Wall Street than "Main Street" proclaim that they are our popular protectors? How can a Party that celebrates its military aggression around the world credibly portray themselves as deliverers of peace?
The answer may be the often repeated mantra that the Democrats are ultimately the "lesser evil". And confronted with Trump and his white nationalism this is a profound greater evil indeed. Yet the danger of these inspiring speeches goes beyond mere hypocrisy--behind their glittering words are a legitimate threat to democracy and progress.
Empty Democratic Rhetoric
The Democratic convention has been filled with soaring rhetoric about the existential dangers of Trump to US democracy. In a speech already being lauded as one for all times, former President Barack Obama gave a full throttled defense of the Republic while forcefully maintaining that it was uniquely under threat. He proclaimed, that while "we should also expect a president to be the custodian of this democracy" Trump represents "Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before."
"In place of an actual shared politics to resist the rapidly increasing creep of fascism at home and abroad, we are offered empty rhetoric and a history of broken progressive promises." Almost completely unnoticed though was that the vast majority of these offenses either occurred or were started in his administration. It was Obama who authorized putting families in privately profitable cages. It was Hillary Clinton who first publicly suggested separating families at the border to discourage would-be immigrants and asylum seekers. And lest not forget that this humanitarian crisis was largely caused by the Obama administration's support for an anti-democratic right-wing coup in Honduras. Or that he did little to stop the brutal repression of BLM protestors when they first arose in Ferguson. Or that he joked about the need to potentially privatize the post office and even unsuccessfully tried to appoint two officials to the USPS to do so. And the list goes on, so it goes.
Highlighting these similarities is not meant to downplay the danger of Trump and the movement he represents. Rather, it is to point out that the modern rise of authoritarian capitalism has been a bipartisan effort in the extreme. Even scarier, it is the supposed high mindedness and inspiring words that make this Democratic threat to democracy so hard to identify and effectively challenge.
In place of an actual shared politics to resist the rapidly increasing creep of fascism at home and abroad, we are offered empty rhetoric and a history of broken progressive promises. These stirring words may stave off the disaster of the Trump election in the short term but will little to ultimately save 21st-century democracy and may even put it in further jeopardy in the long run.
The "Obama Inspiration Syndrome"
The immediate response to these charges is the understandable desire to focus on defeating the urgent threat of Trump before dealing with the less pressing danger posed by the Democrats. And indeed, as a strategy, it is perhaps a legitimate though short-sighted one. The problem arises when we allow the inspiring rhetoric of these "moderates" to trick us into thinking they are part of the democratic solution to our systemic ills.
The risk is placing all our collective energy in stopping Trump and the Far Right. The mantra "anyone but Trump" reinforces the belief that he and his administration are solely and completely to blame for growing political repression and economic precarity. It is a perfect example of the right-wing originated but tragically accurate "Trump Derangement Syndrome". All the issues of racial capitalism are reduced to the flaws and faults of one evil man.
Yet this almost pathological hatred, however legitimate, is now mixed with a worrying case of "Obama Inspiration Syndrome". Here the former President is the epitome of all that is still good in our politics, nation, and world. He is the defender of our worsening climate, the protector of our decaying economy, the guardian of our crumbling democracy. No amount of evidence can seemingly convince his most fervent supporters that he and his Democratic establishment colleagues are anything but ethical and righteous. If Trump can do no right, then Obama can do no wrong.
What this "Democratic" demagoguery leads to is a bolstering of the very neoliberal corporate status quo that gave birth to Trump and his brand of twitter fuelled fascism in the first place. It is not surprising that the Convention was filled with "acceptable" Republicans. Or that only recently the Obama family has been seen cozying up to their friends in the Bush family. Suddenly, all that proceeded Trump--the Iraq War, the legalized torture policies, the Wall Street created financial crisis, the "prison-industrial" complex--are acceptable parts of a democratic society.
Going deeper, this plays into the broader attempt of Democrats to weaponize the threat of domestic fascism in support of global imperialism and militarism. The new "red scare" against Putin--whatever its facts or actual threat--is being used to re-legitimize the "deep state" NSA and CIA who are ironically responsible for subverting and overthrowing so many democracies around the world.
Inspiring Reaction
The Democrat's greatest fear, it seems, besides Trump are actual progressives. Instead of being embraced this growing diverse coalition of young people, working-class people, activists, and academics are constantly ridiculed and marginalized. Obama and Trump are thus each in their own ways inspiring reaction against the prospect of real systemic change that could reinvigorate and truly save our democracy.
"Obama and Trump are thus each in their own ways inspiring reaction against the prospect of real systemic change that could reinvigorate and truly save our democracy." The virulent combination of "The Trump Derangement Syndrome" and the "Obama Inspiration Syndrome" are different parts of the same political disease killing US democracy. The valorization of all things Democrat is the snake oil in place of a real cure. It is the sweet-sounding and emotionally rousing placebo that makes us feel better about the condition of our liberty and rights as they continue to pass away.
It is telling, therefore, in this age of supposed "cancel culture" and "political correctness" how Obama and his even more morally troubling predecessor Bill Clinton continue to be not only tolerated but downright celebrated. It is hard to imagine how drone bombing and actually presiding over a decrease in black wealth can be considered "woke" or even allowable. While Obama's words do not explicitly advocate racism or prejudice, they should be considered dangerous speech precisely for how they cover over and distract from his administration and Party's actual record.
The fundamental concern is that it is exactly this inspiring but dangerous speech that will make it difficult if not impossible to hold these "lesser evil" options politically accountable. Biden is already stepping back from his progressive concessions around health care and fossil fuels. He has stated that he too would deal harshly with left-wing protesters as well as proposing to actually increase funding for the police. And it was mere months ago that a majority of Democratic legislators approved once again massive military spending.
Democracy in the US and around the world is imperiled both by its proclaimed enemies and its supposed friends. The authoritarian of Trump is overt and must be resisted at all costs. However, in doing so, we should not be lulled into ignoring the subtler threats of those who are slowly destroying democracy even while singing its praises and pretending to be its greatest defenders. We must never forget, that it will take much more than inspiring speeches to save and expand our democracy.
In the midst of a global pandemic and anti-racist insurrection, the 2020 Democratic National Convention has captured the nation's imagination. Despite being held virtually, key political figures such as Michelle and Barack Obama have delivered electrifying speeches. They have brought in even "moderate" Republicans to show this is no ordinary election but a concerted and collective defense of democracy in the face of Far-Right fascism.
Yet after the applause has died down, an unsettling reality begins to re-emerge. There is a troubling moral and political hypocrisy to these proceedings. How can a Party who is nominating the architect of the nation's mass incarceration claim to be the last best defense of its democracy? How can former Presidents who governed more for Wall Street than "Main Street" proclaim that they are our popular protectors? How can a Party that celebrates its military aggression around the world credibly portray themselves as deliverers of peace?
The answer may be the often repeated mantra that the Democrats are ultimately the "lesser evil". And confronted with Trump and his white nationalism this is a profound greater evil indeed. Yet the danger of these inspiring speeches goes beyond mere hypocrisy--behind their glittering words are a legitimate threat to democracy and progress.
Empty Democratic Rhetoric
The Democratic convention has been filled with soaring rhetoric about the existential dangers of Trump to US democracy. In a speech already being lauded as one for all times, former President Barack Obama gave a full throttled defense of the Republic while forcefully maintaining that it was uniquely under threat. He proclaimed, that while "we should also expect a president to be the custodian of this democracy" Trump represents "Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before."
"In place of an actual shared politics to resist the rapidly increasing creep of fascism at home and abroad, we are offered empty rhetoric and a history of broken progressive promises." Almost completely unnoticed though was that the vast majority of these offenses either occurred or were started in his administration. It was Obama who authorized putting families in privately profitable cages. It was Hillary Clinton who first publicly suggested separating families at the border to discourage would-be immigrants and asylum seekers. And lest not forget that this humanitarian crisis was largely caused by the Obama administration's support for an anti-democratic right-wing coup in Honduras. Or that he did little to stop the brutal repression of BLM protestors when they first arose in Ferguson. Or that he joked about the need to potentially privatize the post office and even unsuccessfully tried to appoint two officials to the USPS to do so. And the list goes on, so it goes.
Highlighting these similarities is not meant to downplay the danger of Trump and the movement he represents. Rather, it is to point out that the modern rise of authoritarian capitalism has been a bipartisan effort in the extreme. Even scarier, it is the supposed high mindedness and inspiring words that make this Democratic threat to democracy so hard to identify and effectively challenge.
In place of an actual shared politics to resist the rapidly increasing creep of fascism at home and abroad, we are offered empty rhetoric and a history of broken progressive promises. These stirring words may stave off the disaster of the Trump election in the short term but will little to ultimately save 21st-century democracy and may even put it in further jeopardy in the long run.
The "Obama Inspiration Syndrome"
The immediate response to these charges is the understandable desire to focus on defeating the urgent threat of Trump before dealing with the less pressing danger posed by the Democrats. And indeed, as a strategy, it is perhaps a legitimate though short-sighted one. The problem arises when we allow the inspiring rhetoric of these "moderates" to trick us into thinking they are part of the democratic solution to our systemic ills.
The risk is placing all our collective energy in stopping Trump and the Far Right. The mantra "anyone but Trump" reinforces the belief that he and his administration are solely and completely to blame for growing political repression and economic precarity. It is a perfect example of the right-wing originated but tragically accurate "Trump Derangement Syndrome". All the issues of racial capitalism are reduced to the flaws and faults of one evil man.
Yet this almost pathological hatred, however legitimate, is now mixed with a worrying case of "Obama Inspiration Syndrome". Here the former President is the epitome of all that is still good in our politics, nation, and world. He is the defender of our worsening climate, the protector of our decaying economy, the guardian of our crumbling democracy. No amount of evidence can seemingly convince his most fervent supporters that he and his Democratic establishment colleagues are anything but ethical and righteous. If Trump can do no right, then Obama can do no wrong.
What this "Democratic" demagoguery leads to is a bolstering of the very neoliberal corporate status quo that gave birth to Trump and his brand of twitter fuelled fascism in the first place. It is not surprising that the Convention was filled with "acceptable" Republicans. Or that only recently the Obama family has been seen cozying up to their friends in the Bush family. Suddenly, all that proceeded Trump--the Iraq War, the legalized torture policies, the Wall Street created financial crisis, the "prison-industrial" complex--are acceptable parts of a democratic society.
Going deeper, this plays into the broader attempt of Democrats to weaponize the threat of domestic fascism in support of global imperialism and militarism. The new "red scare" against Putin--whatever its facts or actual threat--is being used to re-legitimize the "deep state" NSA and CIA who are ironically responsible for subverting and overthrowing so many democracies around the world.
Inspiring Reaction
The Democrat's greatest fear, it seems, besides Trump are actual progressives. Instead of being embraced this growing diverse coalition of young people, working-class people, activists, and academics are constantly ridiculed and marginalized. Obama and Trump are thus each in their own ways inspiring reaction against the prospect of real systemic change that could reinvigorate and truly save our democracy.
"Obama and Trump are thus each in their own ways inspiring reaction against the prospect of real systemic change that could reinvigorate and truly save our democracy." The virulent combination of "The Trump Derangement Syndrome" and the "Obama Inspiration Syndrome" are different parts of the same political disease killing US democracy. The valorization of all things Democrat is the snake oil in place of a real cure. It is the sweet-sounding and emotionally rousing placebo that makes us feel better about the condition of our liberty and rights as they continue to pass away.
It is telling, therefore, in this age of supposed "cancel culture" and "political correctness" how Obama and his even more morally troubling predecessor Bill Clinton continue to be not only tolerated but downright celebrated. It is hard to imagine how drone bombing and actually presiding over a decrease in black wealth can be considered "woke" or even allowable. While Obama's words do not explicitly advocate racism or prejudice, they should be considered dangerous speech precisely for how they cover over and distract from his administration and Party's actual record.
The fundamental concern is that it is exactly this inspiring but dangerous speech that will make it difficult if not impossible to hold these "lesser evil" options politically accountable. Biden is already stepping back from his progressive concessions around health care and fossil fuels. He has stated that he too would deal harshly with left-wing protesters as well as proposing to actually increase funding for the police. And it was mere months ago that a majority of Democratic legislators approved once again massive military spending.
Democracy in the US and around the world is imperiled both by its proclaimed enemies and its supposed friends. The authoritarian of Trump is overt and must be resisted at all costs. However, in doing so, we should not be lulled into ignoring the subtler threats of those who are slowly destroying democracy even while singing its praises and pretending to be its greatest defenders. We must never forget, that it will take much more than inspiring speeches to save and expand our democracy.
"This isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a political decision to let preventable diseases spread—to ignore science, lend legitimacy to anti-vaccine extremism, and dismantle the infrastructure that protects us all."
Public health experts and other critics on Wednesday condemned the Trump administration's decision to cut off funding to the global vaccine alliance Gavi, which the organization estimates could result in the deaths of over 1 million children.
"Abhorrent. Evil. Indefensible," Atlantic staff writer Clint Smith said on social media in response to exclusive reporting from The New York Times, which obtained documents including a 281-page spreadsheet that "the skeletal remains" of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) sent to Congress on Monday.
The leaked materials detail 898 awards that the Trump administration plans to continue and 5,341 it intends to end. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, which runs the gutted USAID, confirmed the list is accurate and said that "each award terminated was reviewed individually for alignment with agency and administration priorities."
The United States contributes 13% of Gavi's budget and the terminated grant was worth $2.6 billion through 2030, according to the Times. Citing the alliance, the newspaper noted that cutting off U.S. funds "may mean 75 million children do not receive routine vaccinations in the next five years, with more than 1.2 million children dying as a result."
"The administration's attempt to unilaterally walk away from its Gavi commitment raises serious legal questions and should be challenged."
Responding to the Trump administration's move in a social media thread on Wednesday, Gavi said that U.S. support for the alliance "is vital" and with it, "we can save over 8 million lives over the next five years and give millions of children a better chance at a healthy, prosperous future."
"But investing in Gavi brings other benefits for our world and the American people. 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," Gavi continued.
The alliance explained that "aside from national security, investing in Gavi means smart economics too. Every dollar we invest in lower income countries generates a return of $54. This helps countries develop and communities thrive, taking away pressure to migrate in search of a better life elsewhere."
"The countries Gavi supports, too, see the benefit in our model: Every year they pay more towards the cost of their own immunisation program, bringing forward the day when they transition from our support completely," the group noted. "Our goal is to ultimately put ourselves out of business."
"For 25 years, the USA and Gavi have had the strongest of partnerships," the alliance concluded. "Without its help, we could not have halved child mortality, saved 18 million lives or helped 19 countries transition from our support (some becoming donors themselves). We hope this partnership can continue."
Many other opponents of the decision also weighed in on social media. Eric Reinhart, a political anthropologist, social psychiatrist, and psychoanalytic clinician in the United States, said, "A sick country insists on a sick world."
Dr. Heather Berlin, an American neuroscientist and clinical psychologist, sarcastically said: "Oh yes, this will surely end well. Good thing the U.S. has an invisible shield around it to protect us from 'foreign' diseases."
Some Times readers also praised the reporting. Dr. Jonathan Marro—a pediatric oncologist, bioethicist, health services researcher, and educator in Massachusetts—called the article "excellent but appalling," while Patrick Gaspard, a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and its action fund, said that it was "crushing to read this important story."
The newspaper noted that "the memo to Congress presents the plan for foreign assistance as a unilateral decision. However because spending on individual health programs such as HIV or vaccination is congressionally allocated, it is not clear that the administration has legal power to end those programs. This issue is currently being litigated in multiple court challenges."
Liza Barrie, Public Citizen's campaign director for global vaccines access, also highlighted that point in a Wednesday statement. She said that "the Trump administration's decision to end U.S. funding for Gavi will cost more than a million children's lives, make America less secure. It abandons 25 years of bipartisan commitment to global immunization and undermines the very systems that help prevent deadly outbreaks from reaching our own doorsteps."
"Vaccines are the most cost-effective public health tool ever developed," Barrie continued. "This isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a political decision to let preventable diseases spread—to ignore science, lend legitimacy to anti-vaccine extremism, and dismantle the infrastructure that protects us all. In their shocking incompetence, the Trump administration will do it all without saving more than a rounding error in the budget, if that."
"Congress has authority over foreign assistance funding," she stressed. "The administration's attempt to unilaterally walk away from its Gavi commitment raises serious legal questions and should be challenged. Lawmakers must stand up for the rule of law, and for the belief that the value of a child’s life is not determined by geography."
"The way it was told to us is we are effectively closing the agency because it's not possible for us to do our statutory work with the amount of staff that's being allocated," one employee said.
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
The vast majority of the employees at a small but impactful federal agency tasked with resolving workplace conflict were told Wednesday that they will be placed on administrative leave. The news was first reported by the Federal News Network.
"There is a very skeletal crew that is going to be retained," said one employee with Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), who spoke to Common Dreams on the condition of anonymity. "The way it was told to us is we are effectively closing the agency because it's not possible for us to do our statutory work with the amount of staff that's being allocated."
Managers told employees about the changes during multiple meetings held on Wednesday morning with the agency's different regional branches. About a dozen employees will remain on, according to Federal News Network.
The agency, which employs roughly 220 workers according to a budget document submitted to Congress in March 2024, has a mandate to assist parties in labor disputes "affecting commerce to settle such disputes through conciliation and mediation."
According to a one-pager from the agency, FMCS conducted over 5,400 mediated negotiations and provided over 10,000 arbitration panels in fiscal year 2024. The agency estimates that it saves the economy more than $500 million dollars annually while operating with an annual budget of $55 million—or less than 0.0014% of the total federal budget.
U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month mandating that FMCS and six other government entities be eliminated "to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law."
The other programs and agencies impacted by Trump's executive order are the United States Agency for Global Media; the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution; the Institute of Museum and Library Services; the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness; the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; and the Minority Business Development Agency.
As of Wednesday afternoon, a note on the agency's homepage said that FMCS was reviewing the recent executive order and that the "requirements outlined in these orders may affect some services or information currently provided on this website."
An automatic reply email from FMCS's director of congressional and public affairs, Greg Raelson, states that Raelson is "no longer with FMCS due to the recent Reduction in Force (RIF) plan."
"Working at FMCS has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my career, and I am deeply saddened to witness such drastic and short-sighted measures taken against a congressionally established agency that has played such a critical role in serving our nation and taxpayers since 1947," Raelson wrote in the automatic reply email.
National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and Vice President JD Vance celebrated as a residential building "collapsed" following a U.S. strike.
Along with raising alarm about a massive national security breach—and questions about the competence of top officials in the Trump administration who "inadvertently" added a journalist to a Signal group chat about plans to bomb targets in Yemen—the incident that Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg publicized this week included an apparent "confession" of at least one alleged war crime.
As
Common Dreams reported Wednesday, Goldberg released the entirety of the group chat that was held via the commercial messaging app Signal, following denials by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that any classified information was transmitted in the discussion.
In addition to making clear the detailed plans for attacks on Houthi targets in Yemen using F-18s and drones, the conversation included a brief message from National Security Adviser Michael Waltz in which he appeared to casually describe a strike on a civilian target in Sanaa.
Waltz first praised Hegseth, Central Command leader Gen. Michael Kurilla, and the intelligence community for an "amazing job," saying a "building collapsed" after U.S. intelligence identified a Houthi leader who was targeted for a strike.
He then clarified his message for Vice President JD Vance: "Their first target—their top missile guy—we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend's building and it's now collapsed," wrote Waltz.
The vice president replied, "Excellent."
The messages Goldberg disclosed to the public were sent over several days after he received a connection request from "Michael Waltz" via the Signal app. The conversation took place around the Trump administration's March 15 bombing of Yemen, which was carried out after the Houthis renewed a blockade on Israeli ships.
At least 31 civilians were killed in the bombing campaign, and the Houthi media office reported at the time that the U.S. had struck a "residential neighborhood" in Sanaa.
On Wednesday, journalist and author Kim Zetter said Waltz's message suggested top administration officials knew U.S. forces had "targeted [a] residential building," despite President Donald Trump's claims to the contrary.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said the messages contain "prima facie evidence of at least one war crime applauded by the people who conspired to commit it."
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the organization, recalled the warning of Foundation for Middle East Peace president Lara Friedman in September 2024 regarding the Biden administration's support for Israel's "rules of war" in Gaza—where "every human being" has been defined "as a legitimate military target—a terrorist, a terrorist supporter or sympathizer, or a 'human shield'... allowing the annihilation of huge numbers of civilians and destruction of entire cities."
"The costs of these new rules of war will be paid with the blood of civilians worldwide for generations to come, and the U.S. responsibility for enabling, defending, and normalizing these new rules—and their horrific, dehumanizing consequences—will not be forgotten,"
said Friedman at the time.
Duss
said Wednesday that "rules of engagement that permit destroying an entire civilian apartment building to kill one alleged terrorist is part of [former President] Joe Biden's legacy."
"It's still a war crime though," he added, "and Waltz's text is a confession."