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

Trump 2.0 can be described as a kakistocracy – a state or society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens.

Let’s process that.

Donald Trump and the Republican Party have made dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives a core part of their political platform, claiming these programs undermine merit and lower standards. Yet, when it comes to their own appointments, qualifications and competence take a backseat to blind loyalty and political convenience. WTF?

The contradiction couldn’t be clearer: while they rail against DEI as a threat to excellence, they openly embrace mediocrity when it serves their own interests.

Trump’s first term was a case study in this hypocrisy. He repeatedly filled key government positions with individuals who had no business being there. Betsy DeVos, a billionaire donor with no experience in public education, was put in charge of the Department of Education. Rick Perry, who once pledged to eliminate the Department of Energy, was placed in charge of it—only to later admit he didn’t fully understand its function. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon with no background in housing policy, was appointed to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The problem wasn’t just incompetence—it was an intentional disregard for expertise in favor of ideological alignment. Trump sought appointees who would be loyal to him personally, rather than those who had the knowledge and skills to effectively lead their respective departments. This trend continued in his judicial appointments, where qualifications took a backseat to political allegiance, resulting in the nomination of judges deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association.

Now, for Trump 2.0, his potential cabinet picks reveal the same troubling pattern:

• Marco Rubio, Secretary of State – A career politician with no foreign policy leadership experience. Lacks deep diplomatic experience; more of a legislator than a negotiator.
• Kash Patel, F.B.I. Director – Has never served in a senior law enforcement position or led a large investigative agency.  Mr. Patel is a right-wing operative who has vowed to use the position to exact revenge on Mr. Trump’s adversaries.
• Pam Bondi, Attorney General – A former Florida attorney general with ties to Trump’s legal battles. Faced scrutiny for dropping a Trump University fraud investigation after receiving a $25,000 donation from Trump’s foundation.
• Pete Hegseth, Defense Secretary – A Fox News host with military experience but no Pentagon leadership background. Unlike past Defense Secretaries, he has never held a senior military or civilian leadership role in the Department of Defense.
• Kristi Noem, Homeland Security Secretary – A governor with no direct national security experience.
• Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Labor Secretary – A former congresswoman with limited labor policy experience.
• John Ratcliffe, CIA Director – A former congressman with a history of politicizing intelligence.
• Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence – A former Democratic congresswoman with a controversial record on foreign policy.
• Mehmet Oz, Medicare and Medicaid Administrator – A TV doctor known for promoting dubious medical treatments.
• Lee Zeldin, EPA Administrator – A politician with a record of voting against environmental protections.
• Elise Stefanik, UN Ambassador – A Trump loyalist with little foreign policy experience.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS Secretary – A vaccine skeptic with no public health credentials.
• Doug Burgum, Interior Secretary – A governor with strong fossil fuel industry ties.
• Doug Collins, Veterans Affairs Secretary – A former congressman with military chaplain experience but no VA leadership background.
• Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary – A hedge fund billionaire with financial conflicts of interest.
• Brooke Rollins, Agriculture Secretary – A conservative think tank executive with no agricultural policy background.
• Howard Lutnick, Commerce Secretary – A Wall Street executive facing potential conflicts of interest.
• Sean Duffy, Transportation Secretary – A reality TV star turned congressman with no transportation policy experience.

The lineup underscores the blatant hypocrisy at play. The GOP’s claim that DEI threatens meritocracy is a smokescreen for their real objective: consolidating power and rewarding loyalty over competence. If Republicans were truly concerned about merit, they would demand expertise in governance—not just fealty to Trump.

You got played, MAGA. You elected the Keystone cops – the gang that couldn’t shoot straight!

BY Rebekkah Markey-Towler, The University of Melbourne

On his first day back in office as United States president, Donald Trump gave formal notice of his nation’s exit from the Paris Agreement – a vital global treaty seeking to rein in climate change.

Before signing the order, Trump declared his reasons to an arena of cheering supporters, describing the global agreement as an “unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off”.

Of course, this is not the first time Trump has withdrawn the US from the Paris deal – he did it in 2017, during his first term in office.

On one hand, Trump’s move is a huge blow to efforts to global climate action. The US is the world’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution, after China. The country is crucial to the global effort to curb climate change.

But given Trump’s climate denialism, it’s actually better that the US absent itself from international climate talks while he is in power. That way, the rest of the world can get on with the job without Trump’s corrosive influence.

A quick refresher on the Paris Agreement

Signed by 196 nations in 2015, the Paris Agreement is the first comprehensive global treaty to combat climate change.

Its overall goal is to hold the increase global temperatures to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C.

Scientists say meeting the more ambitious 1.5°C target is crucial, because crossing that threshold risks unleashing catastrophic climate change impacts, such as more frequent and severe droughts and heatwaves.

Under the agreement, each nation must make national plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help reach the global temperature goals. These plans are known as “nationally determined contributions”.

What Trump’s withdrawal means

Under Trump’s last presidency, the US was only out of the Paris deal for four months, due to the time it took for the retreat to take effect. President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement in early 2021.

This time, the US withdrawal will become official more quickly – after a year. Then, the US will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only United Nations countries not party to the agreement.

The US can keep participating as a party to the Paris agreement until January 2026. That means it may try to negotiate at the COP30 climate change conference in Brazil this year.

COP30 is a big deal. It is when each country is due to present its new nationally determined contributions. The US withdrawal means it is unlikely to bring a new contribution to the meeting – if it attends at all.

Should the US show up, its presence would potentially destabilise negotiations. That’s why removing Trump-backed negotiators from the climate talks going forward is a good outcome.

If the US stayed in the tent under Trump, its negotiators could, for example, agitate to weaken any deals struck at future COP meetings. We saw such tactics from Saudi Arabia at COP29 in Baku. The oil state repeatedly disrupted the talks and in one instance, sought to alter important text in the agreement without full consultation.

With the US out of the way, the other parties to the Paris agreement have a better chance of progressing climate negotiations.

At this stage, it doesn’t appear other countries are preparing to follow Trump out the door. This is despite controversy at the COP29 talks when Argentinian president Javier Milei ordered his negotiators to withdraw only a few days in. Milei had previously described the climate emergency as a “socialist lie”.

At this stage, Trump has not withdrawn from the Paris Agreement’s parent convention, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So after it withdraws from the Paris deal, the US can still attend COP meetings, but only as an observer.

Onwards and upwards

Of course, there are downsides to the US withdrawal from the Paris deal.

Leaving the Paris agreement means the US is no longer required to provide annual updates on its greenhouse gas emissions. This lack of transparency makes it harder to determine how the world is tracking on emissions reduction overall.

Under the Biden administration, the US contributed funding to help developing nations adopt clean energy and cope with climate change (albeit delivering less than it promised). Trump is expected to slash this funding. That will leave vulnerable nation states in an even more precarious position.

While the US was technically only out of the Paris deal for a short period last time, the process was destabilising. It weakened what was an unprecedented show of international solidarity and sent a damaging message about the importance of climate action.

Trump’s latest withdrawal is a similar blow to morale. It’s particularly galling for Americans fighting for climate action, and those struggling with its devastating effects – most recently, the unthinkable fires in Los Angeles.

But Trump’s withdrawal can easily be reversed by a new US president. And we can expect other parties to Paris, such as China and the European Union, to continue to play a leadership role, and others to fill the vacuum.

What’s more, as others have noted, Trump cannot derail global climate action. Investment in clean energy is now greater than in fossil fuels. When Trump last pulled out of Paris, many US state and local governments pressed ahead with climate policy; we can expect the same this time around.

And the vast majority of the rest of the world is still pursuing emissions reduction efforts.

So overall, the US exit from Paris is probably the best of a bunch of bad options. It mutes Trump’s capacity to destabilise international climate action, allowing others to step into the breach.

Rebekkah Markey-Towler, PhD Candidate, Melbourne Law School, and Research fellow, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

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.”

As more campuses join the protests against Israel’s continuing engagement in war crimes in Gaza, one common thread runs through the student demands. It’s this: divest from supplying the Netanyahu government and the IDF with weapons of mass destruction.

What compels many of these youthful demonstrators to occupy the public spaces and offices of their universities is the complicity of college portfolios with investments in U.S. weapon manufacturers. They know that the products of defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighterjet and General Dynamics’ MK 84—a 2,000-pound bomb—are slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians throughout Gaza.

They also understand that the U.S. government, from President Joe Biden to the Congress, is opposed to legislative efforts to hold Israel accountable to its violation of various on-the-books prohibitions for governments “engaged in gross human rights abuses” (Section 502 B of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act). Instead, they see the Biden Administration exploiting every loophole in any restrictions to supply Israel with unending transfers of bombs and military equipment. While countries, like Canada and numerous others, have stopped shipping weapons to Israel, the U.S. seems oblivious to the suffering and devastation caused daily by the IDF in Gaza.

They are aware that Israeli state propaganda spreads constant disinformation about its war crimes in Gaza, from rationalizing its attacks on the staff and patients in hospitals to the murder of over 200 aid workers. They know that countless human rights agencies have condemned these kinds of war crimes in Gaza. (These same human rights agencies have also condemned the brutal killing of 1,200 Israeli civilians and the taking of hostages on October 7). In order to justify the murder of so many innocent civilians, the Netanyahu government has insisted that they have actually killed 9,000 Hamas militants. However, if they read one of the recent articles in the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz from March 31, they understand this figure is reflective of what the IDF calls “kill zones” (think “free-fire zones” in the U.S. war on Vietnam) where anything in those zones, including women and children, were legitimate targets to then be counted as Hamas militants.

They are surely aware of what Netanyahu cabinet members have said about the Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank that they are just “human animals.” The Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, has bragged about destroying the “electricity, food, and fuel” in Gaza. One of his advisers, a former IDF General, reflective of the targeting of aid workers, including those murdered seven from World Central Kitchen, acknowledged that “in order to make the siege effective, we have to prevent others from giving assistance to Gaza.” Such mass murder and wanton destruction of property in Gaza is part of a campaign of killing that one UN official has cited as “probably the highest kill ratio of any military killing anybody since the Rwandan genocide of 1994.”

When students see and hear about all of this, they are obviously motivated to express their moral outrage. On one hand, these expressions may not always comport with so-called civility. On the other hand, they are not prepared to remain silent and/or passive in the face of an unfolding genocide. In their adherence to Dr. King’s reference to the “fierce urgency of now,” they are committed, as Dr. King was, to disturbing the peace.

Indeed, we need to be reminded of another quote from Dr. King that was central to his famous Riverside Address (“A Time to Break Silence”) from April 4, 1967. He warned prophetically that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Beyond the horrors in Gaza and the long tragic history of the oppression of Palestinians, these student protestors are trying to save their own nation from its death-dealing spiral. What their protest ultimately signifies is their commitment to an authentic advocacy for peace and justice abroad and at home.

Fran Shor is a Michigan-based retired teacher, writer, and activist.

Licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Original here.

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).