In discussions with senior executives across several industries, the following topic inevitably shows up: what can we do to reduce risks to our business due to geopolitical instability (which is code for Trump). This essay is an attempt to start this conversation, not just with businesses, but with countries as well.

UPDATE: Try the De-Americanization App >>

The Collapse of the American Model

The American Empire is crumbling. Its institutions are corrupted by money and special interests, its corporations worship shareholder primacy at the expense of people and planet, its culture exports hyper-consumerism and false promises. For decades, governments and businesses worldwide have been taught to imitate this model — only to find themselves ensnared in dependencies that strip away sovereignty.

“De-Americanization” is not anti-American. It is anti-dependency. It is the recognition that the U.S. system — financialized, extractive, exploitative — no longer serves as a viable model for the future. For governments, it means reclaiming autonomy from the dollar, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Washington’s geopolitical grip. For businesses, it means breaking free from Madison Avenue spin, Wall Street finance, and Silicon Valley monopolies to rediscover their own cultures, stakeholders, and ecosystems.

The question is simple: Will the world collapse with America, or regenerate beyond it?

Why De-Americanize?

The world has been living under the shadow of the American model for decades. We have been taught that “bigger is better,” that Wall Street knows best, that consumer culture is the pinnacle of progress. But today the cracks are visible everywhere. The empire’s institutions are failing, its corporations are extractive, and its culture has hollowed out the imagination of entire societies.

To de-Americanize is not to reject the American people. It is to reject the dependency on a system that no longer works. It is to reclaim sovereignty, resilience, and regeneration. The reasons are clear.

• Political Instability

America itself has become unstable. Polarization, authoritarian drift, contested elections, and economic misleadership — the U.S. is no longer the anchor it was. To tie your fate to a collapsing political system is reckless. Dependency on instability guarantees collapse.

• Sovereignty at Risk

Nations and firms that rely on U.S. finance, defense, or tech live in a fragile illusion of independence. If Washington shifts policy, imposes sanctions, or tightens controls, entire economies can collapse overnight. Sovereignty that passes through Silicon Valley servers or Wall Street clearinghouses is not sovereignty at all. Dependency is fragility.

• Systemic Risk

The U.S. system itself is unstable. Overleveraged, financialized, addicted to short-term profit. The 2008 global crash revealed how fragile the model is, and how quickly the damage spills across borders. Today, the dollar itself has become a weapon — militarized through sanctions, exclusion, and coercion. To rely on a fragile empire is to inherit its instability.

• Cultural Colonization

Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Madison Avenue have colonized imaginations across the planet. Local stories, languages, and aesthetics are drowned out by Americanized fantasies of endless consumption. To de-Americanize is to tell our own stories, elevate our own knowledge systems, and resist cultural homogenization disguised as freedom.

• Economic Extraction

Value flows outward. U.S. platforms and consumer giants siphon profits from local economies, strip data from citizens, and repatriate wealth to Wall Street. What remains is dependency and precarity. De-Americanization is the act of reclaiming value for local communities, keeping profits — and dignity — rooted in place.

• Sustainability vs. Extraction

The American model externalizes costs — onto workers, onto the environment, onto the future. It is a system built to burn the commons and call it growth. De-Americanization is not just about survival. It is about shifting to regeneration: circular economies, commons stewardship, equitable systems that nourish instead of destroy.

• Geopolitical Multipolarity

The unipolar world is gone. A multipolar order is emerging, messy and contested. To survive, nations and companies must be flexible, not tethered to a single declining empire. De-Americanization is preparation for a world where power is distributed, not monopolized.

The Signs of Crisis: What are the Triggers driving De-Americanization?

The case is not complicated. The American model has failed. Its promises of prosperity were built on exploitation. Its stability is an illusion. Its culture is colonization.

De-Americanization is not anti-Americanism. It is survival. It is sovereignty. It is the reclamation of futures stolen by dependency.

The question is not whether the U.S. will collapse under its contradictions. It already is.
The question is whether the rest of us will collapse with it — or regenerate beyond it.

Here are the seven crisis triggers that accelerate de-Americanization.

1. Financial Shock – The Dollar as Weapon
   The dollar has long been sold as a neutral currency. But it is not neutral. It is political, and increasingly weaponized. Sanctions, asset freezes, and dollar-denominated debt traps remind the world that the dollar is not a global commons, but a U.S. instrument. A sudden collapse in confidence, a sanctions overreach, or a liquidity freeze could turn dependency into paralysis. The lesson: a reserve currency that can be switched off by one government is not a safe foundation for sovereignty.
2. Supply Chain Disruption – Fragility Exposed

Food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors — the lifelines of modern economies. When these flow through U.S.-controlled routes or suppliers, disruption is inevitable. Pandemic shortages, shipping crises, and geopolitical trade wars show how fragile “just-in-time” really is. In a world of cascading risks, dependency on U.S. agribusiness or chipmakers is not efficiency — it is fragility dressed as optimization.

3. Regulatory Shock – Empire by Force

U.S. regulations do not stop at U.S. borders. From financial compliance regimes to extraterritorial sanctions, Washington extends its “law” across the globe. Companies that do not comply risk losing market access, funding, or legitimacy. A single rule change in Washington can paralyze operations in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. This is empire by dictat — and it is why regulatory sovereignty is non-negotiable.

4. Technology Cutoff – Silicon Valley as Switch

Modern economies run on data, cloud, chips, and algorithms. Yet the infrastructure is concentrated in the hands of U.S. corporations. If AWS or Google Cloud is shut off, entire economies go dark. If chip exports are blocked, industries halt. If patents are enforced selectively, innovation stops. Technology is no longer just commerce — it is control. De-Americanization begins with technological sovereignty.

5. Consumer Backlash – The Cultural Revolt

Culture is not soft power; it is hard economics. Brands that once sold Americana as aspiration now face rejection. Boycotts, cultural backlash, and demands for local authenticity grow stronger with each executive order by President Trump. The more a company wraps itself in American identity, the more vulnerable it becomes to rejection in a multipolar world. Consumer sentiment moves faster than supply chains — and it punishes dependency.

6. Climate Crisis – When Nature Breaks the Model

The U.S. food system is built on monocrops, fossil fuels, and fragile logistics. Hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, droughts in the Midwest, wildfires in California — each disrupts global supply chains. Climate does not recognize empire. When monocrop failure in America ripples into food crises worldwide, dependency becomes famine. Only regenerative, local systems offer resilience in the age of climate chaos.

7. U.S. Political Instability – Empire in Decline

The greatest risk comes from within. America itself is now unstable — polarized, authoritarian-leaning, and politically brittle. Contested elections, institutional breakdown, or a slide into authoritarianism would destabilize not just the U.S., but every system dependent on it. To tie sovereignty to such a volatile political system is reckless. De-Americanization is, at its core, a hedge against empire collapse.

De-Americanization for Governments: Reclaiming Sovereignty (and the Future)

The first responsibility of government is to protect its people. Yet too many governments have ceded this duty to Washington, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley. The result is a hollow sovereignty — borders on paper, but dependencies in practice. To reclaim the future, governments must de-Americanize their foundations.

1. Admit the Dependency

Begin with honesty. Audit your reserves, your food systems, your data, your defense. Where do your seeds come from? Who owns your banks? Where are your servers hosted? Who controls your fighter jets? If the answer is Washington or Silicon Valley, then sovereignty is an illusion. You cannot manage what you refuse to measure. The audit is the mirror.

2. Diversify Fast

Dependency is fragility. Build resilience by diversifying — quickly. Forge regional alliances. Create trade corridors outside the dollar. Develop sovereign digital infrastructure that does not collapse if Silicon Valley flips a switch. Multipolar diplomacy is not luxury — it is survival. The world is no longer unipolar; to act as if it is, is to invite collapse.

3. Rebuild the Commons

A society that outsources its water, its schools, its healthcare, its justice, has already surrendered. The commons are the backbone of resilience. Privatization weakens people and strengthens dependency. Rebuilding the commons is not charity — it is security. When food, water, and justice are shared, the nation endures. Collective security must continue – even without the United States.

4. Renew Your Culture

Empire colonizes not only territory, but imagination. Governments must stop importing their stories from Hollywood, their textbooks from Washington, their algorithms from Silicon Valley. To renew culture is to elevate indigenous knowledge, to teach local history, to invest in regenerative economics. A people who know their own story cannot be ruled from afar.

5. Lead Differently

Leadership is not domination. True leadership is regenerative. Build coalitions for climate justice. Share models of circular economy. Invest in regional security built on cooperation, not exploitation. The world does not need another empire — it needs examples of sovereignty without violence, prosperity without extraction.

Collaboration and Interdependence

De-Americanization for governments is not retreat. It is renaissance. It is the refusal to let the decline of one empire dictate the collapse of all. Sovereignty is not only independence from Washington — it is interdependence with neighbors, with nature, with the future.

The nations that admit, diversify, rebuild, renew, and lead differently will not only survive the fall of the American model — they will inherit the future.

De-Americanization for Businesses: Understanding the Real Risks of Collapse

Corporations have long mistaken growth for dependency — mistaking Wall Street’s approval for real value, mistaking Silicon Valley’s platforms for progress, mistaking Madison Avenue’s tricks for trust. But the American model of business is dying. Extraction, speculation, and short-term profit have destroyed resilience. For businesses to survive — and to thrive — they must de-Americanize.

1. Audit Your Chains

Start with radical transparency. Map your dependencies — who funds you, who supplies you, who owns your digital backbone, who shapes your brand story. If your finance runs through Wall Street, if your data sits in AWS, if your identity is borrowed from American consumer culture — you are fragile. Dependency hides in plain sight. An audit reveals the choke points.

2. Decouple and Diversify

Every dependency is a liability. Begin cutting the cords. Localize supply chains. Diversify markets beyond U.S. demand. Seek capital from sovereign wealth funds, regional banks, or regenerative investors — not Wall Street’s quarterly machine. Diversification is not inefficiency — it is resilience.

3. Regenerate the Business Model

The age of extraction is over. Regeneration must replace exploitation. Build businesses that create value for communities, ecosystems, and employees — not just shareholders. Circular economies, stakeholder equity, transparent supply chains — these are not costs, they are survival strategies. A company that destroys its soil, water, and people will not endure.

4. Rebrand Truthfully

The American way was to manipulate. To sell lifestyles and illusions. That age is over. Trust has become the only sustainable currency. Businesses must rebrand truthfully — telling stories rooted in local culture, in real partnerships, in verifiable impact. Authenticity cannot be outsourced to Madison Avenue. It must be lived.

5. Lead Differently

Leadership is not cornering the market. It is opening the commons. Share regenerative practices, open-source solutions, and sustainable methods. Build alliances with peers, even competitors, to restore ecosystems and empower regional and local communities. True leadership will not be measured in market share, but in how much you restore.

The Future of De-Americanized Business Ecosystems

De-Americanization for business is not retreat from globalization — it is renewal of globalization on different terms. Businesses that free themselves from American dependencies will become resilient, trusted, and regenerative. New trading coalitions and alliances can be built rapidly – if there is a shared commitment to de-Americanization.

The corporations that dare to audit, decouple, regenerate, rebrand, and lead differently will not just outlive the American model — they will redefine what business means in the 21st century.

A Crisis Implementation of De-Americanization

In calm times, de-Americanization could be imagined as a slow reform. A decade-long transition, carefully managed, negotiated with patience. But the world is not calm. Crises compress time. A single shock can collapse a system in weeks. Currency turmoil, sanctions, supply chain breakdowns, climate disasters — each accelerates the timeline. What was once a 20-year project is now a 3-year scramble.

We are already there. The storm is not on the horizon — it is upon us.

The First 100 Days: Survival

The priority in a crisis is not elegance. It is survival. When the American model falters, dependency becomes catastrophe. The first 100 days are about stopping the bleeding:

• Freeze Capital Flight
  Wealth evaporates in a panic. Without capital controls, reserves vanish into offshore accounts or Wall Street instruments. A government or firm that cannot freeze the outflow will collapse.
• Secure Payroll and Liquidity
  People must be paid. Panic turns to revolt when wages stop. Businesses must prioritize liquidity over profit; governments must protect public payroll above all else.
• Stockpile Essential Inputs
  Food, fuel, medicine, chips. Every economy has critical inputs. In a crisis, U.S.-linked supply chains dry up. Stockpiling is not inefficiency — it is life insurance.
• Transition Data and Operations Off U.S. Platforms
  Dependency on AWS, Microsoft, Google is fragility. A switch can be flipped in Washington and whole economies go dark. Sovereign data is survival.
• Communicate Transparently to Preserve Trust
  People can endure hardship if they trust leadership. Lies, spin, and silence destroy legitimacy. Crisis management is not only logistics — it is narrative.

Actionable next steps (100–180 days)

• Build a tariff/export “digital twin” of your supply chain; simulate 10–25% duty scenarios and instant BIS rule changes.

• Qualify a second site + supplier for your top 10 revenue SKUs (contracted volumes, line trials booked).

• Stand up an export-compliant SKU squad (legal + architecture + PMO) for rapid re-binning when rules move.

• Refinance/raise with non-politicized capital where possible; scrub covenants for government control optics.

• Harmonize to a global ingredient baseline to reduce U.S.-only reformulation overhead and recall exposure.

• Segment data + keys by region (SaaS, logs, model weights) with clear subpoena boundaries.

The 2-3 Year Crash Program: Renewal Under Fire

Once the bleeding is stopped, rebuilding must begin. But there is no time for the luxury of gradual reform. The crash program is about embedding sovereignty into the foundations of economy and culture.

• Build Sovereign Tech Stacks and Payment Systems
  Regional clouds, open-source platforms, local chip fabs, multipolar payment corridors. Every dependency on Silicon Valley and Wall Street must be replaced with resilient alternatives.
• Establish Regenerative Local Supply Chains
  No more monocrop dependence, no more single-source fragility. Food, energy, and manufacturing must be grounded in regenerative local systems that restore soil, water, and community wealth.
• Rebrand Away from U.S. Identity
  A company or state tethered to American imagery will face backlash. Rebrand as sovereign, rooted, regenerative. Authenticity replaces Americana.
• Anchor in Culture, Commons, and Stakeholder Value
  Long-term resilience depends not only on economics but on meaning. Governments must reinvest in schools, water, and justice. Businesses must create value for workers, ecosystems, and communities. Culture must be renewed from within, not imported.

Industry Vulnerabilities

• Tech – Most exposed to U.S. tech bans and export controls.
• Food & Agriculture – Tied to U.S. monocrops and vulnerable to climate.
• Finance & Energy – Anchored in the dollar, exposed to sanctions.
• Consumer Brands – Exposed to cultural backlash and identity rejection.
• Defense/Pharma – Dependent on U.S. legitimacy and regulation.

What should Key Industries Do?

The table below captures a summary of our ideas. The details are specific to each company of course. 

The De-Americanization Strategy Toolkit (what companies are actually doing)

1) Footprint Diversification (“China+1…+N” and “USA+1”)

Move assembly/componentization into multiple jurisdictions to arbitrage tariff/ex-control lines and qualify for local content rules.

2) Product Segmentation for Controlled Markets

Design “export-compliant” SKUs for restricted jurisdictions (reduced compute, different interconnects).

3) Supplier Base Re-wiring & Dual-Sourcing Critical Inputs

Build mirrored BOMs (e.g., U.S./EU + ASEAN), qualify alternates, and modularize so single-country shocks don’t halt final build.

4) Corporate (Re)Structuring to Ring-Fence Risk

Spin-offs, carve-outs, or holding-company redesigns to separate “U.S.-centric” from “global” businesses.

5) Financing Mix that Minimizes Political Strings

Prefer private/ally-market capital; if accepting U.S. subsidies, avoid equity-like upside or governance hooks that create “state-instrument” optics abroad.

6) Currency & Invoicing Diversification (De-Dollarization Light)

Set contracts in EUR/JPY/CNH where feasible; add FX collars and multi-currency AR/AP netting to blunt tariff-induced price shocks.

7) Data-Sovereign Architectures

Adopt multi-cloud with strict data-localization (EU, India, ASEAN), in-region encryption key custody, and sovereign PaaS variants to reduce reach of U.S. subpoenas.

8) Export-Control Readiness & “Compliance DevOps”

Embed a real-time rules engine (ECCN mapping, end-use/end-user screening) in quoting/fulfillment; maintain “kill-switch” SKUs tied to new BIS rules.

9) Ingredient & Label Strategy for Food/CPG

Shift away from U.S.-specific additives toward globally acceptable baselines to avoid dual formulations.

10) Contractual Risk Transfer

Bake in tariff/sanction pass-through clauses, movable INCOTERMS, and material adverse policy change (MAPC) triggers to reprice or reroute quickly.

11) Talent & IP Hubs Outside Single Jurisdictions

Spread critical R&D across allied regimes; ensure IP ownership structures prevent export-control “taint.”

12) Listings, IR & Banking Diversification

Pursue dual listings and multi-bank relationships outside the U.S. to keep capital access if OFAC/BIS actions disrupt dollar rails.

Case Studies 

Here are some early thoughts;

Intel: Government Ownership as Risk

When the U.S. government acquired ~10% of Intel, it blurred the line between state and corporation. For foreign partners, Intel became less independent — a U.S. political tool. This case illustrates why tech sovereignty matters: reliance on U.S. platforms makes companies and nations vulnerable to Washington’s whims.

Heinz Spin-Off: A Fork in the Road

Kraft Heinz split into two firms: Global Taste Elevation (Heinz, Philadelphia, sauces) and North American Grocery (Kraft Singles, Oscar Mayer). The split allows Heinz to rebrand globally, diversify supply chains, and pivot from Americana ketchup to a regenerative taste company. Meanwhile, the grocery unit remains locked in U.S. food culture. A lesson: de-mergers can themselves be a de-Americanization strategy.

Nestlé: Incremental Decoupling

Nestlé’s move to eliminate synthetic dyes in U.S. foods reflects how non-U.S. firms adapt to American consumer norms while trying to maintain global flexibility. But incremental reforms are not enough. True sovereignty requires deeper decoupling from U.S. agribusiness and branding systems.

The Path Forward

De-Americanization is not about rejecting innovation. It is about rejecting dependency. It is the refusal to collapse alongside a failing empire.

The roadmap is clear:

• Governments must reclaim sovereignty in finance, commons, and culture.
• Businesses must localize, regenerate, and lead differently.
• In crisis, time compresses: survival first, regeneration next.
• Across industries, vulnerabilities differ, but the imperative is the same.

The American model is failing.

The question is: will your country, your business, find a way to regenerate beyond it?

Stay tuned. Capitalism is changing.

UPDATE: Try the De-Americanization App >>

Trump’s second term is answering that question with devastating clarity.

Our institutions are not just buildings or agencies. They reflect us – our ideals, our hopes, and even our future. If we allow them to be hollowed, or even destroyed, we will lose our democracy – surrendering our freedom to fascism and authoritarianism. If we fight to rebuild them—anchored in the Common Good—they can live again.

Institutions as the Foundations of Democracy

Institutions are not abstractions. They are the bones of democracy, the connective tissue of our society. They are the safeguards that protect us from tyranny, arbitrariness, and the corruption of unchecked power. They are the guardians of the Common Good.

For decades, Americans assumed that their institutions—though imperfect—were durable. The National Parks belonged to all of us. The Justice Department pursued fairness. The Census counted us equally. Public broadcasting told us the truth. The State Department upheld alliances.  Voters could vote by airmail and use voting machines.

But what happens when a leader decides not to steward institutions, but to hollow them out? What happens when loyalty to a man replaces loyalty to the law, to truth, to history, to the people?

Donald Trump’s presidency has answered this question. His first term weakened the foundations. His second term, which began in 2025, is demolishing the pillars.

This demolition of our Democracy is not accidental. It is the strategy of authoritarianism: dismantle, delegitimize, and dominate.

This is the very definition of misleadership – leadership which destroys the Common Good.

Let us count the ways.

1. National Parks & Public Lands

 Before Trump:
America’s national parks and protected lands were celebrated worldwide—“America’s best idea.” These lands were set aside for the public, conserved for future generations. Presidents of both parties expanded protections, treating nature as a shared inheritance.

First Term:
Trump shrank Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante monuments by millions of acres. He opened sacred lands to mining, oil, and gas drilling. Environmental reviews were bypassed, and the voices of Indigenous communities were silenced.

Second Term:
In 2025, Trump accelerated leases in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, weakened the Antiquities Act, and gutted rules protecting water and forests. The Department of the Interior became an arm of extraction industries. Public land is no longer held in trust—it is treated as a business asset to be sold off.

The Department of the Interior laid off 1,000 National Park Service employees, a nearly 20% drop in park workforce in some cases.  At Yosemite, cuts in personnel forced rangers into tasks like restroom maintenance and led to a surge in overtime and search-and-rescue missions.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Biodiversity loss, Indigenous dispossession, park visitor dissatisfaction and climate damage. A common inheritance privatized for short-term profit.

2:  Public Broadcasting (PBS/NPR)

Before Trump:
Public broadcasting was one of the most trusted institutions in America. PBS documentaries and NPR journalism connected millions of citizens to fact-based reporting and culture.

First Term:
Trump repeatedly threatened to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). NPR journalists were attacked as “fake news.”

Second Term:
In 2025, the administration slashed CPB’s budget by 30%. Political appointees were installed on oversight boards. NPR affiliates in rural areas lost funding, forcing closures. PBS had to seek corporate sponsors, eroding independence.

Consequences for the Common Good:
A misinformed citizenry. Public broadcasting reduced to private influence. Truth itself put at risk.

3: Voice of America (VOA)

Before Trump:
VOA was a beacon of American credibility worldwide. Its independence made it a trusted source in countries where truth was scarce.

First Term:
Trump installed loyalists in leadership and pressured VOA to promote his narratives. Journalists resigned in protest.

Second Term:
In 2025, VOA became an overt propaganda channel. International credibility collapsed. Journalists were pushed to repeat White House talking points on China, Ukraine, and immigration.

Consequences for the Common Good:
The U.S. lost its moral voice abroad. Authoritarian regimes celebrated. The US has lost a way to counter misinformation or to pursue the truth on the global stage.

4: History of Slavery & American Sins

Before Trump:
Schools were slowly integrating honest accounts of slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism, and Native genocide into curricula. The 1619 Project symbolized this reckoning.

First Term:
Trump launched the “1776 Commission” to promote “patriotic education” and ban “critical race theory.”

Second Term:
By 2025, the Department of Education tied federal funding to state compliance with “pro-American curricula.” History standards were rewritten to minimize slavery, colonization, and racism. Teachers who dissent face dismissal.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Historical amnesia, and institutional erasure of the truth. A nation unable to face its sins cannot heal them.

5: Arts & Culture (NEA, NEH, Smithsonian)

Before Trump:
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) funded community projects across the U.S.—theaters, museums, libraries. Art and culture were treated as public goods.

First Term:
Budgets proposed eliminating both agencies. Funding survived, but barely.

Second Term:
In 2025, funding cuts of 40% forced small arts institutions to close. Federal support for museums dwindled. Art and culture became dependent on wealthy donors, reinforcing inequality.

Consequences for the Common Good:
The arts became privatized luxuries instead of democratic expressions of creativity.

6: Environmental Protections (EPA)

Before Trump:
The EPA regulated air and water quality, enforced emissions standards, and protected human health.

First Term:
Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental rules. The Clean Power Plan was scrapped. Climate science was suppressed.

Second Term:
In 2025, a former coal lobbyist ran the EPA. Emissions regulations collapsed. U.S. climate pledges abandoned. Climate denial returned as official policy.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Increased pollution, rising health risks, and the loss of America’s climate leadership. The loss of biodiversity.

7: Healthcare (ACA/Medicaid)

Before Trump:
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded healthcare to over 20 million Americans. Medicaid was strengthened.

First Term:
Trump failed to repeal ACA but weakened it through executive orders and lawsuits.

Second Term:
By 2025, Medicaid eligibility was narrowed. Subsidies shrank. RFK Jr., as Health Secretary, gutted vaccine policy. Millions lost coverage, women’s reproductive care restricted.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Health became a privilege, not a right. The most vulnerable suffer first. Increased mortality rates for infants and women.

8: Immigration 

Before Trump:
Deferred Action for Childhood (DACA) protected “Dreamers.” Refugee admissions held steady.

First Term:
Trump imposed the Muslim ban, reduced refugee admissions, and separated families at the border.

Second Term:
In 2025, family separations quietly resumed. Refugee cap dropped near zero. DACA frozen in courts. Deportations surged – some 1.2 million immigrants have been removed from society – leading to a crisis in the labor workforce. The administration doesn’t acknowledge habeas corpus.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Humanitarian crises at the border. America’s moral credibility shattered. Loss of illegals lead to rising prices of food, construction, and infrastructure-related services.

9: Department of Justice / Judiciary

Before Trump:
The DOJ enforced civil rights laws and was seen as largely independent.

First Term:
AG Barr used the DOJ to protect Trump and attack his critics.

Second Term:
In 2025, Harmeet Dhillon gutted the Civil Rights Division. Voting rights cases dropped. DOJ loyalty tests proliferated. Over two-thirds of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division staff are expected to leave their jobs, accepting a resignation offer as the Trump administration moves to drastically reshape the agency.

Consequences for the Common Good:
The law was weaponized for partisan purposes. Equality before the law has eroded.

10: Census & Voting Systems

Before Trump:
The Census was nonpartisan, ensuring fair representation and resources.

First Term:
Trump tried to add a citizenship question, aiming to suppress counts of immigrants.

Second Term:
In 2025, gerrymandering expanded so that black Americans have less representation. Census methodology skewed. Voter ID laws proliferated under DOJ approval.

Consequences for the Common Good:
A distorted democracy. Some voices silenced; others amplified unfairly. The GOP holds on to power at the expense of the people’s wishes.

11: Education 

Before Trump:
Title IX protections ensured equity. Federal support for student loans expanded access.

First Term:
Betsy DeVos dismantled borrower protections and weakened Title IX enforcement.

Second Term:
Trump attacks major universities such as Harvard and Columbia, on accusations of antisemitism and reduces previously granted funding for many student science projects.  In 2025, federal funding tied to “a patriotic curriculum.” Charter schools expanded, public schools underfunded. Trump cancels many foreign students from coming to American universities that accepted them.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Education became a battlefield of ideology, not a ladder of opportunity. America’s educational and scientific future is threatened.

13: State Department / Diplomacy

Before Trump:
The State Department relied on a professional corps. Alliances were stable.

First Term:
Diplomatic corps hollowed, Paris Accord abandoned, NATO weakened.

Second Term:
In 2025, further staff exodus. Partisan loyalists replaced career diplomats. NATO fractured. Trump raises tariffs on its close allies. Allies bypass America.

Consequences for the Common Good:
U.S. global influence diminished. Allies no longer trust America.

14: Consumer Protection (FTC, CFPB)

Before Trump:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) protected consumers from predatory finance and monopolies.

First Term:
CFPB defanged under pro-industry leadership.

Second Term:
In 2025, antitrust actions abandoned. FTC slowed enforcement. Tech and finance corporations operate unchecked. Staff and contractors at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have been told they cannot “perform any work tasks.”

Consequences for the Common Good:
Consumers exposed to predatory lending, monopoly abuses, and privacy violations.

15: Social Safety Nets (SNAP, SSI, WIC)

Before Trump:
Social safety nets such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the Wicked 7 Project ( WIC) reduced hunger, supported children, and alleviated poverty.

First Term:
Trump proposed deep cuts to food stamps and SSI, blocked in Congress.

Second Term:
In 2025, work requirements were reinstated. Funding cut. Eligibility narrowed. Millions lose food assistance.

Consequences for the Common Good:
Food insecurity and poverty rise. The poor and vulnerable abandoned.

What Next?

We listed 15 institutional areas that Trump and his MAGA (Make America Great Again) followers devastated.  Sadly, Trump’s actions changed MAGA to MAWA (Make America Weak Again).  Foreign countries are shocked and dismayed by how rapidly America sunk from the world’s Leading Democracy to a collapsing Empire with crumbling power.

Trump talks about acquire Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal.  Trump had the audacity to dictate new tariffs that he would charge not only to his enemies (China 50%), to neutral countries (India 50%, Switzerland 39%) and to his allies (Canada and Mexico 25%).  At the United Nations Security Council in June 2025, the U.S. was effectively the only country opposing an effort to move toward peace—specifically, it vetoed a resolution calling for an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza.  

Within America, instead of Trump uniting Americans, he deepens divisions daily. His purpose is to openly vilify and destroy the Democrats and their party and to set himself up as a lifelong dictator. Seriously, does anyone doubt this still?

What will it take to stop this madness and restore Democracy in the USA? Time is running out.

IMAGE credit.

If there are any limits to a president’s power, it wasn’t evident from Donald Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025.

In that speech, the first before lawmakers of Trump’s second term, the president declared vast accomplishments during the brief six weeks of his presidency. He claimed to have “brought back free speech” to the country. He declared that there were only two sexes, “male and female.” He reminded the audience that he had unilaterally renamed an international body of water as well as the country’s tallest mountain.

“Our country is on the verge of a comeback the likes of which the world has never witnessed, and perhaps will never witness again,” Trump asserted.

The extravagant claims appear to match Trump’s view of the presidency – one virtually kinglike in its unilateral power.

It’s true that the U.S. Constitution’s crucial section about the executive branch, Article 2, does not grant the president unlimited power. But it does make this figure the sole “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”

This monopoly on the use of force is one way Trump could support his 2019 claim that he can do “whatever I want as President.”

Before Trump’s speech, protesters outside had taken issue with Trump’s wielding of such unchecked power. One protester’s sign said, “We the People don’t want false kings in our house.”

With those words, she echoed a concern about presidential power that originated more than 200 years ago.

Remnants of the monarchy

When the Constitution was written, many people – from those who drafted the document to those who read it – believed that endowing the president with such powers was dangerous.

Ratified after a lot of huffing and puffing, on May 29, 1790, by rather nervous citizens, the text of the Constitution had stirred many controversies.

It wasn’t just the oftentimes vague language, which includes head-scratchers such as the very preamble, “We the People of the United States.” Nor was the discomfort due solely to the document’s jarring brevity – at 4,543 words, the U.S. Constitution is the shortest written Constitution of any major nation in the world.

No, what made that document especially problematic, to borrow from John Adams, was that it provided for “a monarchical Republick, or if you will a limited Monarchy.”

Adams would eventually become the nation’s second president in 1797. Even though he was a staunch supporter of the Constitution, he was honest enough to take a hard look over the political layout of the new nation. And what he found were remnants of the British monarchy and traces of a king whose unchecked abuses had led the Colonists to demand their independence in the first place.

“The Name of President,” Adams couldn’t help concluding in a letter to prominent Massachusetts lawyer William Tudor, “does not alter the Nature of his office nor diminish the Regal Authorities and Powers which appear clearly in the Writing.”

While Adams was only somewhat uncomfortable, as a historian of the early republic I can stress that other observers at the time were downright appalled.

In a 1787 article published in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, “An Old Whig” – identity unknown – wrote, “The office of President of the United States appears to me to be clothed with such powers as are dangerous.”

As the commander in chief of the Army, the American president “is in reality to be a king as much a King as the King of Great Britain, and a King too of the worst kind – an elective King.”

Consequently, as the author of this article resolved, “I shall despair of any happiness in the United States” until this office is “reduced to a lower pitch of power.”

‘Subjects of a military king’

Concern over a commander in chief declaring martial law, no matter the legality of the measure, was similarly on the minds of the Americans who had read the Constitution.

In 1788, a patriot who went under the pseudonym of “Philadelphiensis” – real name, Benjamin Workman – issued a sweeping warning. Should the president decide to impose martial law, “your character of free citizens” would be “changed to that of the subjects of a military king.”

A president turned military king could “wantonly inflict the most disgraceful punishment on a peaceable citizen,” the piece continued, “under pretence of disobedience, or the smallest neglect of militia duty.”

Another power given to the president was also universally considered extremely dangerous: that of granting pardons to individuals guilty of treason.

Maryland Attorney General Luther Martin reasoned that the treason most likely to take place was “that in which the president himself might be engaged.” What the president would do, Martin wrote, would be “to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons.”

George Mason, who participated in the Constitutional Convention and also drafted Virginia’s state Constitution, foresaw a gloomy scenario. He shivered at the idea of a president who would “screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.”

Choosing ‘villains or fools’

The framers did limit executive power in one significant way: The president of the United States is subject to impeachment and, upon conviction of treason or other high crimes, removal from office.

But in the meantime, the president may enact irreparable damage.

The Constitution was finally ratified – but only begrudgingly by the American citizens, who feared a president’s abuse of power. More persuasive than the legal restraints placed on the office, the belief that the people would choose their leader wisely tipped the scale toward approval.

Delegate John Dickinson asked a rhetorical question: “Will a virtuous and sensible people chuse villains or fools for their officers?”

Also, 18th-century common sense deemed it improbable that a person without virtue and magnanimity would run for the nation’s highest office. Americans’ faith in their first president, the upstanding George Washington, helped convince them that all would end well and their Constitution would be sufficient to protect the republic.

The Federalist Papers, the 85 essays written to persuade voters to support ratification, were suffused with this optimism.

People “of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States” were widely available, said the Federalist #67.

“It will not be too strong to say,” reads Federalist #68, “that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.”

Government of laws?

Adams wasn’t so optimistic. He wavered. And then he flipped the issue on its head.

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good … established in the Minds of the People,” he had written in a 1776 letter, “or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.”

After almost 250 years of uninterrupted republican life, Americans are used to thinking that their nation is secured by checks and balances. As Adams kept repeating, America aims at becoming “a government of laws, and not of men.”

Americans, in other words, have long believed it is their institutions that make the nation. But the opposite is true: The people are the soul and the conscience of the republic.

Everything, in the end, boils down to the character of these people and the control they assert over who becomes their most important leader.

Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di Torino

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

IMAGE: President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

There is a growing incidence of toxic leadership in organisations across the world. This is clear from anecdotal evidence as well as research which suggests that one out of every five leaders is toxic. My own research shows that closer to three out of every ten leaders are toxic.

This cancer of toxicity threatens the well being of both individuals and organisations. It also affects the performance of a society and country. That’s why there is a pressing need for leaders to understand the nature, dynamics and evolution of toxic leadership and organisations.

The word “toxic” comes from the Greek “toxikon” which means “arrow poison”. In a literal sense, the term in its original form thus means to kill (poison) in a targeted way (arrow). Toxic organisations and leaders therefore are those who deliberately destroy the fabric of the institution.

What makes a toxic leader?

Toxic leadership represents the “dark” side of leadership. It affects individuals as well as organisations.

In the case of individuals toxic leadership refers to ongoing, deliberate, intentional actions – the “arrow” – by a leader to undermine the sense of dignity, self-worth and efficacy of an individual – the “poison”. This results in exploitative, destructive, devaluing and demeaning work experiences. These destructive actions may be physical, psychosocial or even spiritual when they diminish a person’s meaning and purpose.

A toxic organisation is one that erodes, disables and destroys the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of the people who work in it in permanent and deliberate ways. In other words, an organisation becomes metaphorically a “poison pill” for employees.

Workplace bullying is similar to toxic leadership, but is just one form of it. Bullying is more centred on individual, one-on-one, physical or emotional abuse by any one individual, including a leader, on another person.

In contrast to toxic leadership, healthy, authentic leadership nurtures and affirms the dignity, worth and efficacy of an individual. It creates enabling, empowering and meaningful work experiences.

And a healthy, authentic organisation is one that nurtures and grows the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of its organisational members.

Can toxic leaders be competent?

Leadership toxicity and incompetence are not directly related. Both competent – getting the desired results – and incompetent leadership can be toxic.

If a narrower definition of competence is used – only focusing on technical and professional competencies – a toxic leader may still be seen as competent because they are “delivering the goods”. This is particularly true if a short term view is taken. But over the longer term their short term success is unsustainable. This is because they are destroying their teams, departments or organisations in the process.

If a comprehensive, long term view is taken toxic leaders are incompetent because they are not competent across all domains of a well-rounded leader. Taking a comprehensive view, leadership qualities include personal attributes, technical and professional competencies, values and attitudes, and conduct.

I believe that toxic leaders, regardless of their level of technical and professional competence, are incompetent. After all, competent leadership is all about getting things done with people.

Typical toxic leaders

Five typical toxic leaders exist:

• The Cold Fish: the ends justifies the means. So any decision and action is justifiable in terms of the results desired.
• The Snake: the world serves me in the endeavour to satisfy my personal needs like greed, status and power.
• Glory Seeker: personal glory and public visibility at any cost, regardless of whether I have made any real and meaningful contribution.
• Puppet Master: absolute, centralised control over everything and anyone, under all circumstances.
• Monarch: ruling the organisation as if it is my kingdom. All of its assets are available for my personal use.

The more prolific these toxic leaders are in an organisation, the more toxic the organisation. The table below profiles these toxic leaders.

Typical toxic organisations

The typical manifestations of a toxic organisation resulting from toxic leadership are:

• Negative emotional moods and mood swings: anger, despair, despondency, frustration, pessimism and aggression.
• Unproductive and meaningless work.
• Destructive and counterproductive conduct.
• Employee physical and emotional disengagement and withdrawal such as absenteeism, lack of contribution, and turnover.
• Unethical, deviant conduct: theft, fraud and sabotage.
• Poor well-being and health.
• Low (team) morale and work satisfaction.
• Organisational dis-identification and low organisational commitment.
• General life dissatisfaction.

But organisations can be toxic in their own right through the organisational culture they have. Organisational culture refers to shared ways of seeing, interpreting and acting upon the world that becomes ingrained in an organisation’s DNA. It’s the glue holding it together and provides an organisation with a way of looking at and relating to the world.

When toxic patterns become ingrained into the DNA of an organisation the following patterns emerge:

• Paranoid: the defensive, afraid, suspicious, trusting no-one or nobody organisation.
• Compulsive: the over-planned and over-programmed organisation.
• Hyperactive: the impulsive, unfocused organisation, acting like an adolescent.
• Deflated: the energyless, depressed and impotent organisation.
• Delusional: the reality estranged, make-believe organisation, living in a world of its own.
• Conscienceless: the unethical, amoral organisation.

There appears to be a growing incidence of the cancer of toxic leadership and organisations. This is in no uncertain terms endangering the well being of organisational members, compromising future sustainable organisational, community and societal performance and success, as well as the very continued existence of them.

This article is based on a longer, more comprehensive academic paper.

Theo Veldsman, Professor and Head, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Is your business degenerative? Is it following the well-thumbed playbook of corporate crapitalism?

Here’s an undeniable truth: most businesses are degenerative. They exploit, extract, and destroy – decimating the Common Good. Let’s confront the ugly reality of how most companies operate:

1. You Can’t Kill Your Customer and Call It Value Creation

It’s basic: if your business harms your customers, it’s doomed. Selling junk food, addictive products, or predatory services might work for a while, but it’s a race to the bottom. You can’t build trust—or a future—on exploitation. Long-term value means putting people’s well-being at the core of your business.

2. Business Is Part of Nature, Not Apart from It

A no-brainer. All business depends on the beneficence of Nature, yet most treat Nature like it’s disposable. The truth is, your business can’t thrive if the planet doesn’t. Whether it’s your supply chain, energy consumption, or waste management, ask yourself: are you regenerating or destroying? The future belongs to companies that heal, not harm.

3. Spreadsheets Don’t Lead, People Do

If your CEO runs the business by spreadsheet, you’ve already lost. Decisions made by algorithms and bottom-line thinking strip humanity out of the equation. Customers and employees aren’t data points—they’re people. Businesses that fail to connect on this level will be replaced by, well, algorithms. Real leadership is about purpose, empathy, and vision—not just numbers.

4. Profiting from Suffering Won’t Last

You can only profit from pain for so long. Sweatshops, environmental destruction, wage theft—they all come back to bite. Public outrage and growing awareness will destroy businesses that thrive on suffering. A regenerative business profits by solving problems, not creating them.

5. Hedge Fund Rule Equals Extraction

When hedge funds run the show, businesses stop being businesses. They become extraction machines, sucking out value for short-term profits and leaving employees, communities, and ecosystems in ruin. These companies strip-mine everything they touch. Real businesses build—extractive ones destroy.

6. CEO Pay: How Much Is Too Much?

When it takes over 100 years for your workers to earn what your CEO makes in a year, you have a problem. Inequality within organizations is a ticking time bomb. Pay disparities demoralize workers, erode trust, and fuel resentment. It’s not just about fairness; it’s about survival. Companies that share the wealth will endure. The others? Good riddance.

7. Does Your Business Give Back More Than It Takes?

Communities are the backbone of any business. But how many companies extract from their communities without giving back? If your business takes more than it contributes, it’s not just unsustainable—it’s parasitic. Businesses that reinvest in their communities create loyal customers, happier employees, and long-term resilience.

8. Do Your Employees Fear You?

When employees are afraid to speak up, to organize, or to challenge the status quo, your business is broken. Fear kills creativity, innovation, and loyalty. A thriving business creates a culture of trust, respect, and empowerment. Fear-driven workplaces collapse under their own weight.

9. Do Your Leaders All Think the Same?

When leadership is homogenous, you get groupthink. Homogeneity limits perspective, stifles innovation, and reinforces the status quo. Diversity isn’t just about representation—it’s about better decision-making. If all your leaders vote the same, think the same, and act the same, your business is on autopilot—heading for a crash.

The world doesn’t need more degenerative businesses. It needs regenerative organizations. Regenerative businesses don’t just reduce harm—they create value for people, communities, and the planet. They restore what’s been destroyed. They repair what’s broken. They rethink what’s possible. They regenerate the Common Good.

The path forward is clear. The question is: will your organization make the Big Shift, or will it double down on crapitalism?

Predicting the winner of a U.S. Presidential election is especially hard in this election year. The candidates are running close to 50-50 and voters are highly polarized. The two candidates have extremely different views of what is the Common Good.

So we choose not to make a prediction.

However, we want to vote. If this was an election in Australia, we would have to vote or pay a fee for not voting.  Furthermore, we would have to rank our candidate preferences if there are three or more candidates.

But we are American citizens. Also, we are largely independent voters.  We aren’t one-issue voter although this would make it easy.  For example, what if we cared only about abortion and voted for the candidate who favors abortion rights for women. We really want to consider all the policy differences between the two candidates.  

How can we do that?

Let’s imagine the economic, social and political outcomes that are likely to follow from each candidate being elected.

Our best step is to list the outcomes that we expect to follow with each candidate if elected. We stand ready to revise our views.  In fact, we invite you, the reader, to look at the two lists.  Feel free to add missing outcomes.

You can send your revised list to us >>  info (at) fixcapitalism dot com >>

Here are our initial lists:

What will happen if Trump wins the 2024 Presidency?

1. Economic chaos as higher prices result from Trump’s rising tariffs and irrational trade policies
2. Cutbacks and/or elimination of Social Security, Medicare, and the possible repeal of Obamacare
3. Social chaos with increased violence towards minorities, workers, and union organizers
4. Political arrests targeting opponents (Trump has also said anyone criticizing the Supreme Court should be jailed)
5. Government appointments not based on merit but ideology (existing government employees will be purged unless they are loyal to Trump)
6. Fewer dependable allies from abroad as NATO(and the EU) is abandoned; China becomes stronger as Taiwan is abandoned
7. Russian power increases as Ukraine is left to itself; US pivots to possible war against Iran
8. Climate problems worsen – pollution regulations are eliminated; drilling allowed in National Parks
9. Polarization and hatred worsen as “remigration” and forced deportation is scaled up
10. Leadership focuses on past grievances – including personal vendettas against people who didn’t support Trump
11. Possibility of mental deterioration of Trump after election – leading to the installation of JD Vance as President
12. Women lose their reproductive rights, and other civil rights as well
13. More tax cuts for the rich and corporate interests, leading to further deficits (military programs to increase at the expense of everything else)
14. Increase in Christian Nationalism and intolerance for other faiths
15. Implementation of Project 2025 and abandonment of constitutional boundaries

What will happen if Harris wins the Presidency?

1. Lower prices as Inflation continues to fall; corporate price-gouging is dissuaded
2. Major job creation with new factories and new investments in renewabletechnologies
3. Higher taxes on the super-rich and corporate profits to support better health and education – this funds Social Security and eliminates austerity measures
4. Strong dependable allies abroad – NATO is supported to create a better, secure future
5. More progress in controlling climate problems – investment in renewables and battery technologies
6. Her international experience will further peacemaking to reduce international disputes
7. Union support instead of opposition and more worker benefits including a higher minimum wage
8. Less polarization and more goodwill amongst the general population; opposition to the culture wars
9. Leadership is younger and motivating for younger generations
10. Women’s rights are secured nationally and across states; abortion rights are strengthened
11.  Church and state are kept separate and America avoids a decline into Christian Nationalism by embracing a culture of respect
12.  Increased regional investments in Latin America to encourage residents to remain in their home countries
13. Support for a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine
14. Support for  job-creation through small business and start-up incentives
15. Corporates and billionaires pay a fairer share of taxes

Does this comparison of likely outcomes help you choose your candidate?

ASK: Which candidate is working for the Common Good? Which candiadte is working for the future wellbeing of our children?  Which candidate has demonstrated a commitment to justice?

May the best candidate win.

The National Labor Relations Board was prevented on Tuesday from moving forward with an unfair labor practices case against the social services tech company Findhelp, after a Trump-appointed judge granted the Texas-based firm’s request for a temporary injunction.

“This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations.”

In the Northern District of Texas, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruledin favor of Findhelp’s claim that administrative law judges at the NLRB have unconstitutional protections from being dismissed by the White House.

The argument has been used by other large companies including billionaire Elon Musk’s aerospace firm SpaceX and a subsidiary of the fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer, which have both also obtained preliminary injunctions from Trump appointees in Texas, shielding them from labor rights cases.

In the SpaceX case, the NLRB argued that “granting an injunction would encourage any employer or labor union unhappy with scrutiny of their labor practices to seek preliminary injunctions against NLRB proceedings.”

Starbucks, Amazon, and Trader Joe’s have also joined the corporate effort to strip the NLRB of its ability to carry out its duties as a federal agency tasked with protecting workers from unfair labor practices. The companies have claimed that the agency’s structure, which was established by the New Deal’s National Labor Relations Act nearly a century ago, violates the president’s “removal powers” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

“Prior to the New Deal, judges claimed things like overtime and child labor rules were unconstitutional,” said journalist Ryan Grim.

Lawyers for the NLRB argued in the Findhelp case that the company is not entitled to relief from a court until the president tries to remove the administrative law judge assigned to Findhelp’s case, but Pittman said he was “unpersuaded by the NLRB’s arguments.”

Pittman cited a precedent established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in 2022 that removal protections for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s judges were unconstitutional.

This month, two federal judges—one appointed by former President Barack Obama and one by President Joe Biden—have rejected other corporate challenges claiming the NLRB is unconstitutionally structured, teeing up a potential U.S. Supreme Court case to settle the matter in the future.

Tuesday’s ruling comes 18 months after the Office and Professional Employees International Union filed a complaint with the NLRB, saying Findhelp had illegally fired and coerced workers who were involved in organizing their workplace. The employees had voted 95-52 in favor of joining the union.

With Pittman’s injunction in place, an NLRB administrative hearing on whether Findhelp unlawfully fired organizers and surveilled employees will not move forward.

“The NLRB protects Americans’ right to unionize, fight unjust firings, and collectively bargain for higher wages,” said the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus. “Without it, employers can ignore labor laws and deprive workers of their rights. This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations.”

When Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives elected Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson as speaker last week, critics quickly sounded the alarm about his previous calls to cut trillions of dollars from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—and the GOP leader triggered a fresh wave of fears on Thursday with related comments to a Capitol Hill journalist.

NBC News‘ Sahil Kapur reported on social media that Johnson “says he pitched a debt commission to Senate Republicans yesterday and ‘the idea was met with great enthusiasm.’ He says it will be bipartisan and bicameral. He says he wants ‘very thoughtful people’ in both parties to lead it. He wants this ‘immediately.'”

In response to Johnson’s remarks—which echoed his first speech as speaker—the Alliance for Retired Americans wrote, “Translation: They’re eager to begin gutting Social Security behind closed doors.”

More on this from Sen. Kevin Cramer: “There was a lot of good talk” about a fiscal commission.

Added there was a lot of appetite among Senate Rs to support Johnson’s move https://t.co/xk6B2TUYEv

— Joseph Zeballos-Roig (@josephzeballos) November 2, 2023

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla)—who led the ouster of ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)—celebrated Johnson’s rise as a win for the far-right. He declared last week that “MAGA is ascendant,” referring to the “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan of former President Donald Trump, who is the GOP front-runner for 2024.

Critics of the new speaker have similarly framed his election as a display of the far-right’s hold on the Republican Party, and are even calling him “MAGA Mike,” including in response to his comments Thursday.

“A week into his tenure, MAGA Mike Johnson is ALREADY calling for closed-door cuts to the Social Security and Medicare benefits American workers have earned through decades of hard work,” warned Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Social Security Works said that “MAGA Mike Johnson’s NUMBER ONE priority is to cut our earned benefits behind closed doors.”

“The White House has rightfully called this type of commission a ‘death panel’ for Social Security and Medicare,” the group noted. “HANDS OFF!”

Back in February, long before McCarthy struck a deal with President Joe Biden to suspend the country’s debt ceiling, Republicans in Congress and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) were floating the idea of a commission, and White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said that “the American people want more jobs and lower costs, not a death panel for Medicare and Social Security.”

As Republican lawmakers have continued to pursue the idea, others have embraced the “death panel” description.

After Johnson’s mention of the commission in his speech last week, Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote:

On the whole, Johnson’s approach to social safety net programs comes right out of the GOP library of lies about the programs’ finances and their effect on the federal budget.

“The reality is, they’re headed towards bankruptcy,” he said in his July 2022 C-SPAN appearance. “In just a few number of years, Social Security goes belly up. So does Medicare, Medicaid, all of these big-spending programs because we’re drowning in debt.”

The idea that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going “bankrupt” is standard Republican hogwash. So is the idea that Social Security will go “belly up” in some number of years—even if Congress sits on its hands, the program will still have enough revenue to cover three-quarters of the benefits due.

“The notion that those programs are drivers of the federal debt is also a bog-standard GOP talking point,” Hiltzik added. “A far more significant portion of the federal budget deficit is the lavish tax cut that Johnson’s party gifted to corporations and the wealthy in 2017, a $1.5-trillion giveaway from which the U.S. economy received no significant gain.”

Most House Republicans and a dozen Democrats on Thursday evening voted to pass a bill that would deliver on Biden’s request for $14.3 billion to help Israel wage war on Gaza—which experts are condemning as genocide—and cut Internal Revenue Service (IRS) funding.

Analysts and Democrats in Congress have warned that the IRS cut would hamper the agency’s ability to crack down on wealthy tax cheats, bolstered by the Congressional Budget Office finding Wednesday that the measure would reduce federal revenues by $26.8 billion and add $12.5 billion to the deficit over the next decade.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who opposed the bill and is among the few Democrats demanding a cease-fire in Gaza, said that “the only thing crueler than sending $14 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for weapons that will result in the deaths of thousands more innocent Palestinian children in Gaza is exploiting that war—exploiting the death of over 1,400 Israeli mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, and hundreds more hostages—to help corporate CEOs and billionaire donors cheat on their taxes.”

Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.
Licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

In yet another instance of disaster capitalism, private equity companies like Blackstone have found two ways to profit from the climate emergency: first by investing in fossil fuel infrastructure and then by buying up restoration companies that clean up after increasingly extreme weather events.

That’s one of the main takeaways from a report released Thursday by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) and Resilience Force titled Private Equity Profits From Disaster at the Expense of Workers, Communities, and Climate.

“Firms like Blackstone should be ashamed of this sinister investment strategy that contributes to catastrophe and rebuilds after it strikes,” report co-author and PESP research coordinator Azani Creeks told Common Dreams.

“The investments Blackstone has made in both ServPro and its fossil fuel companies have long-term consequences that are borne primarily by already marginalized communities in the United States.”

The report documents a shift that took place in the disaster recovery industry following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Before that historic storm, cleanup work in a given area was usually done by smaller local companies.

“After the massive efforts required post-Hurricane Katrina and the increasing frequency and magnitude of climate disasters, private equity firms saw an opportunity to consolidate the market by buying up smaller companies,” Creeks wrote in the report.

And the trend continues. Private equity firms bought 72 restoration companies between January 2020 and June 2023, with the number of purchases rising each year. They acquired 13 in 2020, 20 in 2021, 25 in 2022, and 14 during just the first six months of 2023. If that pace continues through the end of the year, the 2023 total will rise to 28, more than double the yearly purchases three years ago.

The report includes a list of 14 major disaster relief companies owned by private equity firms, five of which also invest in fossil fuels. For example, Blackstone, which owns ServPro, also bought Ohio’s General James Gavin Power Plant—one of the leading single sources of coal pollution in the U.S.— in 2017.In another example, Louisiana-based disaster relief company the Lemoine Company also manages Lemoine Pipeline Services. The company is owned by the private equity firm Bernhard Capital Partners.

This profit-making strategy has major environmental justice implications.

“The investments Blackstone has made in both ServPro and its fossil fuel companies have long-term consequences that are borne primarily by already marginalized communities in the United States,” Creeks told Common Dreams, adding that ServPro often hires immigrants and people of color who are vulnerable to unfair and unsafe labor practices like wage theft.

“Furthermore,” Creek added, “Blackstone’s financing of fossil fuel assets also inflicts direct harm on these same communities, who bear the brunt of toxic emissions and climate disasters.”

Even if private equity firms aren’t funding fossil fuels, their acquisition of restoration companies still means they have a responsibility to workers and communities, the report argues.

As disaster restoration companies have consolidated and gone national, they have organized themselves in a series of franchises and subcontractors. Of the 72 companies acquired in the last three years, more than 80% of them were instances of larger companies buying up smaller ones. These often-opaque corporate structures can make it difficult for workers to challenge their employers over issues like wage theft or unsafe working conditions. Undocumented workers are especially vulnerable, because any complaint may be met with a threat to contact immigration authorities.

“Though issues with wage theft and worker health and safety have long existed in the construction and disaster restoration industries, with an investment from the world’s largest asset manager, you would expect to see these issues less frequently as more resources can be implemented to protect workers,” Creek said. “Instead, the problems at ServPro and other private equity-owned disaster restoration companies persist, with even less mechanisms for accountability and public scrutiny than before.”

One worker named Joél Salazar, who is also an organizer with Resilience Force, shared his experience ServPro subcontractor Royal Services. He said the company offered to pay his way from Florida to Colorado in early 2022 to help with wildfire recovery there, and promised him 40-hour workweeks and weekly paychecks when he arrived. But the travel costs never materialized, weeks started out closer to 20 hours, and the pay ended up being every other week instead.

“The company is stealing from me.”

What’s more, the payment was made via a Visa card. When Salazar said he had to return to Florida, the company canceled his card despite the fact that a significant amount of his earnings were still on it.

“The company is stealing from me,” he said in the report.

Salazar said he wanted private equity firms and investors to be aware of what their companies were doing.

“Investors, I’m calling to ask you to consider worker safety at the companies you invest in, especially the private equity firms you rely on for profits,” he said.

Another problem is unsafe working conditions. Companies owned by private equity firms racked up a total of 194 federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration violations between January 2015 and January 2022. The most common violations were exposing workers to asbestos and failing to provide them with respiratory protection, followed by failing to communicate dangers and protect workers from falls.

Recovery workers are organizing to protect themselves through the group Resilience Force, which says it is “building a strong, stable, inclusive, million-strong workforce that will be able to perform year-round climate preparation and adaptation work, as well as rebuild after disasters.”

The group’s founder and director Saket Soni said in the new report, “We must ensure that these companies, and their private equity backers who profit from disaster, pay and protect the resilience workers who are essential to helping communities adapt and recover.”

What’s better for workers will be better for the communities they help, as well. The report found that the private equity-owned firms engage in price gouging. For example, a ServPro franchise settled with the state of North Carolina for overcharging residents following Hurricane Florence.

The report highlights the legislative efforts of U.S. Rep. Pramilla Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose Climate Resilience Workforce Act would fund jobs and training through grants and make workers less vulnerable by providing a pathway to citizenship for immigrant workers and banning employers from asking about criminal history.

“The innovative Climate Resilience Workforce Act responds to the worsening climate crisis at the scale necessary by investing in a skilled workforce that is capable of not only responding to but preparing for the destructive impacts of climate change,” Jayapal said when the bill was introduced in 2022. “As we create millions of good-paying, union jobs and center the very communities who are disproportionately impacted, we are finally building back better, greener, and stronger.”

The report also issues recommendations to private equity firms to better protect the workers at the companies they own, such as setting up complaint lines, minimizing the use of subcontractors, funding programs to monitor their companies, and allowing their workers to unionize.

Finally, Creeks noted that firms like Blackstone manage public pensions, and have a responsibility to these workers as well.

“Public employees, such as teachers, nurses, and firefighters, have a right to know that their pension dollars are being used to purchase fossil fuel plants that are contributing to climate disasters all over the country,” Creeks told Common Dreams. “In turn, their retirement capital is also being used to buy companies that profit off of these very disasters.”

Olivia Rosane is a staff writer for Common Dreams. This article is republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Image from The Visual Capitalist.

I wasn’t aware of climate change until the 1980s — hardly anyone was — and even when we recognised the dire threat that burning fossil fuels posed, it took time for the role of animal production in warming the planet to be understood.

Today, though, the fact that eating plants will reduce your greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most important and influential reasons for cutting down on animal products and, for those willing to go all the way, becoming vegan.

A few years ago, eating locally — eating only food produced within a defined radius of your home — became the thing for environmentally conscious people to do, to such an extent that “locavore” became the Oxford English Dictionary’s “word of the year” for 2007.

If you enjoy getting to know and support your local farmers, of course, eating locally makes sense. But if your aim is, as many local eaters said, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you would do much better by thinking about what you are eating, rather than where it comes from. That’s because transport makes up only a tiny share of the greenhouse gas emissions from the production and distribution of food.

With beef, for example, transport is only 0.5% of total emissions. So if you eat local beef you will still be responsible for 99.5% of the greenhouse gas emissions your food would have caused if you had eaten beef transported a long distance. On the other hand, if you choose peas you will be responsible for only about 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions from producing a similar quantity of local beef.

And although beef is the worst food for emitting greenhouse gases, a broader study of the carbon footprints of food across the European Union showed that meat, dairy and eggs accounted for 83% of emissions, and transport for only 6%.

More generally, plant foods typically have far lower greenhouse gas emissions than any animal foods, whether we are comparing equivalent quantities of calories or of protein. Beef, for example, emits 192 times as much carbon dioxide equivalent per gram of protein as nuts, and while these are at the extremes of the protein foods, eggs, the animal food with the lowest emissions per gram of protein, still has, per gram of protein, more than twice the emissions of tofu.

Animal foods do even more poorly when compared with plant foods in terms of calories produced. Beef emits 520 times as much per calorie as nuts, and eggs, again the best-performing animal product, emit five times as much per calorie as potatoes.

Favourable as these figures are to plant foods, they leave out something that tilts the balance even more strongly against animal foods in the effort to avoid catastrophic climate change: the “carbon opportunity cost” of the vast area of land used for grazing animals and the smaller, but still very large, area used to grow crops that are then fed — wastefully, as we have seen — to confined animals.

Because we use this land for animals we eat, it cannot be used to restore native ecosystems, including forests, which would safely remove huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. One study has found that a shift to plant-based eating would free up so much land for this purpose that seizing the opportunity would give us a 66% probability of achieving something that most observers believe we have missed our chance of achieving: limiting warming to 1.5℃.

Another study has suggested that a rapid phaseout of animal agriculture would enable us to stabilise greenhouse gases for the next 30 years and offset more than two-thirds of all carbon dioxide emissions this century. According to the authors of this study:

The magnitude and rapidity of these potential effects should place the reduction or elimination of animal agriculture at the forefront of strategies for averting disastrous climate change.

Climate change is undoubtedly the biggest environmental issue facing us today, but it is not the only one. If we look at environmental issues more broadly, we find further reasons for preferring a plant-based diet.

The clearing and burning of the Amazon rainforest means not only the release of carbon from the trees and other vegetation into the atmosphere, but also the likely extinction of many plant and animal species that are still unrecorded.

This destruction is driven largely by the prodigious appetite of the affluent nations for meat, which makes it more profitable to clear the forest than to preserve it for the indigenous people living there, establish an ecotourism industry, protect the area’s biodiversity, or keep the carbon locked up in the forest. We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet for the sake of hamburgers.

Joseph Poore, of the University of Oxford, led a study that consolidated a huge amount of environmental data on 38,700 farms and 1,600 food processors in 119 countries and covered 40 different food products. Poore summarised the upshot of all this research thus:

A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Poore doesn’t see “sustainable” animal agriculture as the solution:

Really it is animal products that are responsible for so much of this. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy.

Those who claim to care about the wellbeing of human beings and the preservation of our climate and our environment should become vegans for those reasons alone.

Doing so would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution, save water and energy, free vast tracts of land for reforestation, and eliminate the most significant incentive for clearing the Amazon and other forests.

This is an edited extract from Animal Liberation Now by Peter Singer (Penguin Random House).

Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics in the Center for Human Values, Princeton University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.