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
U.S. President George W. Bush delivers a speech on Iraq from the porch of the Oval Office at the White House on July 31, 2008 in Washington, D.C. President Bush said he was hoping for further troop withdrawals from Iraq, praising security gains and mentioned cutting the length of combat tours for U.S. forces in the country. (Photo: Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)
The Taliban Surrendered in 2001
But George Bush was fighting a war for oil and empire, and victory would pose a huge tactical difficulty: with no enemy to fight he would have to demobilize his forces in the Mideast and bring them home.
Aug 18, 2021
At a U.S. Special Forces camp near Kandahar, Afghanistan, on December 5, 2001, the Taliban offered an unconditional surrender. Furthermore, they would disband and disarm: a military force would no longer exist.
George W. Bush ignored the offer and continued attacking the Taliban until the end of his term. If only in self-defense the Taliban fought back, eventually regaining the battlefield initiative. Barack Obama fought the Taliban for eight years more. Donald Trump did so for the next four.
George Bush launched a war for oil and empire, invading two sovereign nations without provocation. He violated international law.
Twenty years later, after the squandering of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, President Biden withdrew American troops from Afghanistan--and drew angry criticism for the chaotic exit that followed.
How perverse we have become. We chastise President Biden for a messy ending of the war in Afghanistan and fail to indict George Bush for its illegal beginning.
George Bush launched a war for oil and empire, invading two sovereign nations without provocation. He violated international law.
Within ten days of taking office the Bush Administration formalized a decision to invade Iraq. Long before 9/11 the attack on Afghanistan was scheduled. Neither proposed incursion had the slightest thing to do with terrorism: the objectives were preemptive access to Iraqi oil and a pipeline right-of-way across Afghanistan for the Unocal Corporation. 9/11 offered a spectacular and fortuitous covering alibi; President Bush declared a "war on terrorism" and launched his premeditated wars.
Osama bin Laden was portrayed as an iconic terrorist, to be apprehended for his orchestration of 9/11. But George Bush from his first day in office, January 20, 2001, could have negotiated with the Taliban to assassinate Osama bin Laden or to surrender him into U.S. custody. That was the standing offer the Taliban tendered in late 2000, seeking to retain U.S. favor after bin Laden bombed the U.S.S. Cole. The Bush Administration refused the offer, four times prior to 9/11 and once more five days later.
Saddam Hussein was said to be an intolerable terrorist threat, too. "Regime change" was necessary to remove him from power. In February of 2003, Saddam Hussein offered to enter voluntary exile in Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. Here was "regime change" handed on a platter to George Bush, but a peaceful one. The offer was brushed aside.
George Bush needed terrorists, alive, at large, and in residence in Afghanistan and Iraq, to make his "war on terrorism" credible.
The pipeline project was the first order of business. On October 7, 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was underway, but the billions of barrels of Iraqi oil were never far from mind. Seven weeks later, on November 27, 2001, the President ordered his Defense Department to plan the invasion of Iraq. (That was eleven months before Congress would authorize it.)
The aggressions were titanic failures. Yes, a few American oil companies operate in Iraq today, but they are barely visible among scores of other firms from Egypt, Italy, Japan, France, Austria, the UK, Canada, Hungary, India, Norway, and the holders of the largest contracts by far, Russia and China.
Afghanistan lies in a state of seething chaos. There will be no American pipeline across the country: twenty years of staggering costs in lives and treasure for nothing. Those costs might have been avoided: violence in Afghanistan could have ended two months after George Bush turned it loose.
Anand Gopal, an American journalist, tells the story with unusual authority. He moved to Afghanistan in 2008, learned the language, and for four years he traveled the country freely.
His book appeared in 2014: No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes.
It relates the Taliban's surrender:
His back to the wall, Mullah Omar [leader of the Taliban] drew up a letter to Hamid Karzai, acknowledging his selection as interim president. The letter also granted Omar's ministers, deputies, and aides the right to surrender.
On December 5 [2001] a Taliban delegation arrived at the US special forces camp north of Kandahar city to officially relinquish power...[The Taliban]...pledged to retire from politics and return to their home villages. Crucially, they also agreed that their movement would surrender arms, effectively ensuring the Taliban could no longer function as a military entity. There would be no jihad, no resistance from the Taliban to the new order.
Another description of the surrender, differing little, appeared seven years later:
It took barely two months after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 for the United States mission to point itself toward defeat.
"Tomorrow the Taliban will start surrendering their weapons," the Taliban's spokesman Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef announced on December 7, 2001. "I think we should go home." But the United States refused the group's surrender, vowing to fight on to shatter the Taliban's influence in every corner of the country.
Accepting the surrender would have denoted a great victory in the "war on terrorism." But George Bush was fighting a war for oil and empire, and victory would pose a huge tactical difficulty: with no enemy to fight he would have to demobilize his forces in the Mideast and bring them home. That he could not tolerate: the great prize, the Iraqi oil, had yet to be won, so the fighting in the Mideast would have to be sustained--as a "war on terrorism"--until the invasion of Iraq could be planned, authorized by Congress, and sold to the American people. The Taliban's offer was simply dismissed, and the fighting continued--for twenty years.
And now President Biden has called a halt in Afghanistan, in humiliating defeat. The Taliban, who once offered to disarm and disband, have taken control of Afghanistan. The national media acknowledge the defeat, but trumpet "the end of America's longest war" as recompense. That is grossly misleading: American military violence rages on in the "war on terrorism." U.S. combat troops remain stationed in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Djibouti, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, the Philippines, and Cyprus, and we conduct counterterrorism operations in 61 additional countries around the world.
This madness is the legacy of the Bush Administration, and successive presidents have done nothing to end it. Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is a no-brainer tactical retreat, but George Bush's bogus war plunges mindlessly ahead.
President Biden, carpe diem. Call the "war on terrorism" for the fraud it is and end it. Bring all the troops home, from everywhere.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
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. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Richard W. Behan
Richard Behan lives and writes in Corvallis, Oregon. For two decades he has been writing about democracy’s decline, corporate dominion, and the fraudulent “war on terrorism.” He is completing a book, Defeated Democracy and Criminal War: the Backstories of America’s Interlocked Tragedies. Behan welcomes comments and he can be reached at richard.behan@icloud.com.
At a U.S. Special Forces camp near Kandahar, Afghanistan, on December 5, 2001, the Taliban offered an unconditional surrender. Furthermore, they would disband and disarm: a military force would no longer exist.
George W. Bush ignored the offer and continued attacking the Taliban until the end of his term. If only in self-defense the Taliban fought back, eventually regaining the battlefield initiative. Barack Obama fought the Taliban for eight years more. Donald Trump did so for the next four.
George Bush launched a war for oil and empire, invading two sovereign nations without provocation. He violated international law.
Twenty years later, after the squandering of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, President Biden withdrew American troops from Afghanistan--and drew angry criticism for the chaotic exit that followed.
How perverse we have become. We chastise President Biden for a messy ending of the war in Afghanistan and fail to indict George Bush for its illegal beginning.
George Bush launched a war for oil and empire, invading two sovereign nations without provocation. He violated international law.
Within ten days of taking office the Bush Administration formalized a decision to invade Iraq. Long before 9/11 the attack on Afghanistan was scheduled. Neither proposed incursion had the slightest thing to do with terrorism: the objectives were preemptive access to Iraqi oil and a pipeline right-of-way across Afghanistan for the Unocal Corporation. 9/11 offered a spectacular and fortuitous covering alibi; President Bush declared a "war on terrorism" and launched his premeditated wars.
Osama bin Laden was portrayed as an iconic terrorist, to be apprehended for his orchestration of 9/11. But George Bush from his first day in office, January 20, 2001, could have negotiated with the Taliban to assassinate Osama bin Laden or to surrender him into U.S. custody. That was the standing offer the Taliban tendered in late 2000, seeking to retain U.S. favor after bin Laden bombed the U.S.S. Cole. The Bush Administration refused the offer, four times prior to 9/11 and once more five days later.
Saddam Hussein was said to be an intolerable terrorist threat, too. "Regime change" was necessary to remove him from power. In February of 2003, Saddam Hussein offered to enter voluntary exile in Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. Here was "regime change" handed on a platter to George Bush, but a peaceful one. The offer was brushed aside.
George Bush needed terrorists, alive, at large, and in residence in Afghanistan and Iraq, to make his "war on terrorism" credible.
The pipeline project was the first order of business. On October 7, 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was underway, but the billions of barrels of Iraqi oil were never far from mind. Seven weeks later, on November 27, 2001, the President ordered his Defense Department to plan the invasion of Iraq. (That was eleven months before Congress would authorize it.)
The aggressions were titanic failures. Yes, a few American oil companies operate in Iraq today, but they are barely visible among scores of other firms from Egypt, Italy, Japan, France, Austria, the UK, Canada, Hungary, India, Norway, and the holders of the largest contracts by far, Russia and China.
Afghanistan lies in a state of seething chaos. There will be no American pipeline across the country: twenty years of staggering costs in lives and treasure for nothing. Those costs might have been avoided: violence in Afghanistan could have ended two months after George Bush turned it loose.
Anand Gopal, an American journalist, tells the story with unusual authority. He moved to Afghanistan in 2008, learned the language, and for four years he traveled the country freely.
His book appeared in 2014: No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes.
It relates the Taliban's surrender:
His back to the wall, Mullah Omar [leader of the Taliban] drew up a letter to Hamid Karzai, acknowledging his selection as interim president. The letter also granted Omar's ministers, deputies, and aides the right to surrender.
On December 5 [2001] a Taliban delegation arrived at the US special forces camp north of Kandahar city to officially relinquish power...[The Taliban]...pledged to retire from politics and return to their home villages. Crucially, they also agreed that their movement would surrender arms, effectively ensuring the Taliban could no longer function as a military entity. There would be no jihad, no resistance from the Taliban to the new order.
Another description of the surrender, differing little, appeared seven years later:
It took barely two months after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 for the United States mission to point itself toward defeat.
"Tomorrow the Taliban will start surrendering their weapons," the Taliban's spokesman Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef announced on December 7, 2001. "I think we should go home." But the United States refused the group's surrender, vowing to fight on to shatter the Taliban's influence in every corner of the country.
Accepting the surrender would have denoted a great victory in the "war on terrorism." But George Bush was fighting a war for oil and empire, and victory would pose a huge tactical difficulty: with no enemy to fight he would have to demobilize his forces in the Mideast and bring them home. That he could not tolerate: the great prize, the Iraqi oil, had yet to be won, so the fighting in the Mideast would have to be sustained--as a "war on terrorism"--until the invasion of Iraq could be planned, authorized by Congress, and sold to the American people. The Taliban's offer was simply dismissed, and the fighting continued--for twenty years.
And now President Biden has called a halt in Afghanistan, in humiliating defeat. The Taliban, who once offered to disarm and disband, have taken control of Afghanistan. The national media acknowledge the defeat, but trumpet "the end of America's longest war" as recompense. That is grossly misleading: American military violence rages on in the "war on terrorism." U.S. combat troops remain stationed in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Djibouti, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, the Philippines, and Cyprus, and we conduct counterterrorism operations in 61 additional countries around the world.
This madness is the legacy of the Bush Administration, and successive presidents have done nothing to end it. Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is a no-brainer tactical retreat, but George Bush's bogus war plunges mindlessly ahead.
President Biden, carpe diem. Call the "war on terrorism" for the fraud it is and end it. Bring all the troops home, from everywhere.
Richard W. Behan
Richard Behan lives and writes in Corvallis, Oregon. For two decades he has been writing about democracy’s decline, corporate dominion, and the fraudulent “war on terrorism.” He is completing a book, Defeated Democracy and Criminal War: the Backstories of America’s Interlocked Tragedies. Behan welcomes comments and he can be reached at richard.behan@icloud.com.
At a U.S. Special Forces camp near Kandahar, Afghanistan, on December 5, 2001, the Taliban offered an unconditional surrender. Furthermore, they would disband and disarm: a military force would no longer exist.
George W. Bush ignored the offer and continued attacking the Taliban until the end of his term. If only in self-defense the Taliban fought back, eventually regaining the battlefield initiative. Barack Obama fought the Taliban for eight years more. Donald Trump did so for the next four.
George Bush launched a war for oil and empire, invading two sovereign nations without provocation. He violated international law.
Twenty years later, after the squandering of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, President Biden withdrew American troops from Afghanistan--and drew angry criticism for the chaotic exit that followed.
How perverse we have become. We chastise President Biden for a messy ending of the war in Afghanistan and fail to indict George Bush for its illegal beginning.
George Bush launched a war for oil and empire, invading two sovereign nations without provocation. He violated international law.
Within ten days of taking office the Bush Administration formalized a decision to invade Iraq. Long before 9/11 the attack on Afghanistan was scheduled. Neither proposed incursion had the slightest thing to do with terrorism: the objectives were preemptive access to Iraqi oil and a pipeline right-of-way across Afghanistan for the Unocal Corporation. 9/11 offered a spectacular and fortuitous covering alibi; President Bush declared a "war on terrorism" and launched his premeditated wars.
Osama bin Laden was portrayed as an iconic terrorist, to be apprehended for his orchestration of 9/11. But George Bush from his first day in office, January 20, 2001, could have negotiated with the Taliban to assassinate Osama bin Laden or to surrender him into U.S. custody. That was the standing offer the Taliban tendered in late 2000, seeking to retain U.S. favor after bin Laden bombed the U.S.S. Cole. The Bush Administration refused the offer, four times prior to 9/11 and once more five days later.
Saddam Hussein was said to be an intolerable terrorist threat, too. "Regime change" was necessary to remove him from power. In February of 2003, Saddam Hussein offered to enter voluntary exile in Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. Here was "regime change" handed on a platter to George Bush, but a peaceful one. The offer was brushed aside.
George Bush needed terrorists, alive, at large, and in residence in Afghanistan and Iraq, to make his "war on terrorism" credible.
The pipeline project was the first order of business. On October 7, 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was underway, but the billions of barrels of Iraqi oil were never far from mind. Seven weeks later, on November 27, 2001, the President ordered his Defense Department to plan the invasion of Iraq. (That was eleven months before Congress would authorize it.)
The aggressions were titanic failures. Yes, a few American oil companies operate in Iraq today, but they are barely visible among scores of other firms from Egypt, Italy, Japan, France, Austria, the UK, Canada, Hungary, India, Norway, and the holders of the largest contracts by far, Russia and China.
Afghanistan lies in a state of seething chaos. There will be no American pipeline across the country: twenty years of staggering costs in lives and treasure for nothing. Those costs might have been avoided: violence in Afghanistan could have ended two months after George Bush turned it loose.
Anand Gopal, an American journalist, tells the story with unusual authority. He moved to Afghanistan in 2008, learned the language, and for four years he traveled the country freely.
His book appeared in 2014: No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes.
It relates the Taliban's surrender:
His back to the wall, Mullah Omar [leader of the Taliban] drew up a letter to Hamid Karzai, acknowledging his selection as interim president. The letter also granted Omar's ministers, deputies, and aides the right to surrender.
On December 5 [2001] a Taliban delegation arrived at the US special forces camp north of Kandahar city to officially relinquish power...[The Taliban]...pledged to retire from politics and return to their home villages. Crucially, they also agreed that their movement would surrender arms, effectively ensuring the Taliban could no longer function as a military entity. There would be no jihad, no resistance from the Taliban to the new order.
Another description of the surrender, differing little, appeared seven years later:
It took barely two months after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 for the United States mission to point itself toward defeat.
"Tomorrow the Taliban will start surrendering their weapons," the Taliban's spokesman Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef announced on December 7, 2001. "I think we should go home." But the United States refused the group's surrender, vowing to fight on to shatter the Taliban's influence in every corner of the country.
Accepting the surrender would have denoted a great victory in the "war on terrorism." But George Bush was fighting a war for oil and empire, and victory would pose a huge tactical difficulty: with no enemy to fight he would have to demobilize his forces in the Mideast and bring them home. That he could not tolerate: the great prize, the Iraqi oil, had yet to be won, so the fighting in the Mideast would have to be sustained--as a "war on terrorism"--until the invasion of Iraq could be planned, authorized by Congress, and sold to the American people. The Taliban's offer was simply dismissed, and the fighting continued--for twenty years.
And now President Biden has called a halt in Afghanistan, in humiliating defeat. The Taliban, who once offered to disarm and disband, have taken control of Afghanistan. The national media acknowledge the defeat, but trumpet "the end of America's longest war" as recompense. That is grossly misleading: American military violence rages on in the "war on terrorism." U.S. combat troops remain stationed in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Djibouti, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, the Philippines, and Cyprus, and we conduct counterterrorism operations in 61 additional countries around the world.
This madness is the legacy of the Bush Administration, and successive presidents have done nothing to end it. Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is a no-brainer tactical retreat, but George Bush's bogus war plunges mindlessly ahead.
President Biden, carpe diem. Call the "war on terrorism" for the fraud it is and end it. Bring all the troops home, from everywhere.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
'Abhorrent. Evil. Indefensible.' Trump Cutting Vaccine Alliance Funds Could Kill 1.2 Million Children Worldwide
"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."
Mar 26, 2025
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."
Federal Mediation Agency Left With 'Very Skeletal Crew' After Trump Executive Order
"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.
Mar 26, 2025
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.
Along With National Security Breach, Leaked Signal Chat Contains 'Confession' of Alleged War Crime
National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and Vice President JD Vance celebrated as a residential building "collapsed" following a U.S. strike.
Mar 26, 2025
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."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.