Weekly Progressive POPULIST
WHEN ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS JUST ISN'T ENOUGH Weekly news and commentary to supplement our printed edition Friday, May 15, 2026
Defenseless Against a Deadly Virus, Again
By JOE CONASON
When ominous reports of a highly lethal and potentially communicable illness reach our airwaves, Americans now must rely on foreign authorities to reassure us -- or to warn us.
The Trump administration, and specifically its top health official Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have dismantled the federal scientific infrastructure that protected the nation from such threats and substituted literally nothing in its place. While we may escape the direst consequences of their vandalism for the moment, there is no guarantee that far worse is not coming, and soon.
The ruinous public health impact of Donald Trump’s return to the White House was just as predictable as his rush to enrich himself and his family by every corrupt means. We knew what he is because we saw what he was. His historic failure to competently manage the COVID-19 pandemic mostly occurred in plain sight, as he tried to ignore and then downplay a deadly onslaught of which he had been duly warned.
With his presidential messaging warped by egomania, Trump promised that the spreading pandemic would swiftly and “miraculously” fade away. He knew that was a lie but resisted a sound public testing program because he didn’t want “bad numbers” as the election season began. He failed to provide critically needed hospital supplies as doctors and nurses died. And he undercut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance on safety protocols while promoting quack cures, comic-book science, and loony ideas like “injecting” bleach.
Trump’s mindless, chaotic response led to many thousands of unnecessary deaths, for which he somehow mostly escaped blame, while right-wing media demonized veteran public health officials. And all that insanity occurred while responsible federal officials were still in office -- meaning before Kennedy got the chance to pursue his impulse to destroy the public health edifice that required decades to build.
That course of destruction began as soon as Trump and Kennedy took over last year, although the dismantling had begun during the first Trump administration. Within weeks after his inauguration, the president signed an executive order terminating United States membership in the World Health Organization, a token of his pig-ignorant attitude about the global vectors of diseases that know no borders. At the same time, he ended U.S. observance of International Health Regulations that govern cross-border investigations of disease outbreaks like COVID-19, Ebola and now hantavirus.
Trump’s malign commands are not only leading to the deaths of millions of innocent people in other countries, suddenly deprived of essential medicines and care, but now are jeopardizing American access to vital, timely, lifesaving information. Whatever capable officials are still left in our government can no longer see the WHO surveillance databases or communicate with its working groups of doctors and scientists -- who played a major part in our defense against Ebola during the Biden administration.
Meanwhile, Trump’s sycophant Kennedy has directed an even more damaging reign of ruin on the systems that protect us within our own borders. Apparently motivated by an urge for vengeance on the CDC, which thwarted his anti-vaccine propaganda, Kennedy ousted nearly a third of the agency’s employees. Among the functions most harmed by his stupid waves of firing and rehiring was the renowned Epidemic Intelligence Service, whose medical detectives are trained to investigate and assess infectious outbreaks like hantavirus (or, to take another topical example, the measles epidemic conjured by Kennedy’s anti-vax imbecility).
According to Dr. Celine Gounder, everyone who worked for the CDC’s Vessel Sanitation Program, which monitors cruise ship health conditions, cashiered all its full-time civilian workers in early 2025. (Most of them were later rehired.) Only an idiot would imagine that the government should save money by ruining such precious public services.
The demoralizing impact of Trump and Kennedy on American public health will take a toll that has scarcely even begun.
“I hope it’s fine,” said the president when asked about the hantavirus on Sunday. This time it probably will be. But his halting answer was an eerie echo of what he said in January 2020 -- before he and his stooges demolished the best public health system in the world.Con
Joe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com and author of several books, including (with Gene Lyons) “The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton” (St. Martin’s Press, 2000). Conason co-produced a 2004 documentary film, “The Hunting of the President,” based on the book. His new book is “The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers, and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism,” with a foreword by George T. Conway III.
What No One Will Tell You About the National Debt (But I Will)
By ROBERT REICH
The U.S. national debt just crossed a once-unthinkable threshold on the way toward breaking the record set in the wake of World War II: It now exceeds 100% of America’s gross domestic product.
As of March 31, our publicly held debt was $31.27 trillion, while America’s GDP in 2025 was $31.22 trillion. This puts the ratio at 100.2%, compared with 99.5% when the last fiscal year ended Sept. 30.
That 100.2% figure will likely climb, because the federal government is running historically large annual deficits of nearly 6% of GDP, which add to the debt. The final tally will depend on Iran war spending, tariff refunds, and the strength of the economy.
Should you worry? Well, it’s not as if we’re heading into a depression. Passing the 100% threshold won’t suddenly cause the world to lose confidence in the dollar.
The real problem is that an increasing portion of our nation’s budget — and your tax dollars — is dedicated to paying interest on this growing debt. That’s money we don’t spend on education, health care, roads and bridges, social safety nets, or (if we actually needed more spending on it) national defense.
As the debt continues to grow, interest payments continue to soar. We’ll soon be paying more in interest on the federal debt each year than we spend each year on Medicare.
So, who exactly receives these interest payments? This is an issue you hear very little discussion about, because the wealthy and powerful of this country would rather you didn’t know.
You probably do hear that a chunk of our debt is held by foreign governments and foreign investors. That’s true, but they hold only about 30% of our debt. The rest — roughly 70% — is held domestically. That is, we pay the interest to ourselves.
And who, exactly, is the “ourselves” who receive these interest payments? The Federal Reserve holds part of this debt, state and local governments hold part.
But the biggest chunk — nearly half — is held by mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and banks. And who owns them? The Americans who invest in these funds — and who thereby, directly or indirectly, hold Treasury bills.
And who, exactly are these Americans — the Americans who are directly or indirectly collecting a large amount of the interest we’re paying on the national debt? It’s the people at the top.
The richest 1% of U.S. households hold about 35.6% of all financial assets — shares of stock, corporate bonds, and Treasury bills — so it’s safe to assume they hold at least a third of all Treasury bills.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Here’s where things get really interesting.
Decades ago, wealthy Americans financed the federal government mainly by paying taxes. Their tax rate was far, far higher than it is today. In the 1950s, under President Dwight Eisenhower, the richest Americans paid a marginal tax rate of 91%. (Tax deductions and tax credits meant that the top effective marginal rate was lower than this.)
Fast forward. Now, wealthy Americans finance the federal government mainly by lending it money and collecting interest payments on those loans.
Interest payments on the national debt this year are expected to reach $1 trillion.
There are roughly 128 million households in the United States. Dividing $1 trillion in annual interest among U.S. households would amount to $650 per household per month. (This is a simplified average, of course; actual burdens vary based on tax status, income, and spending.)
The point is that a big chunk of the growing interest payments American taxpayers make on the federal debt is going to wealthy Americans.
Keep following the money. One of the biggest reasons the federal debt has exploded is that tax cuts — starting with the George W. Bush administration in 2001 and extending through Trump’s 2018 and 2024 tax cuts — have reduced government revenues by $10.6 trillion.
Most of the benefits from those tax cuts are going to the wealthy. Since 2000, 65% of the benefits from tax cuts have gone to the richest fifth of Americans, the top 20% of households
So, you see what’s happened?
The wealthiest Americans used to pay higher taxes to finance the government. Now, the government pays wealthy Americans interest on a swelling debt, caused largely by lower taxes on wealthy Americans.
Which means a growing portion of everyone else’s taxes are now paying wealthy Americans interest on those loans, instead of paying for government services everyone needs.
So, from now on, whenever you hear someone say how huge, horrible, and out-of-control the national debt is, explain to them that it’s because of tax cuts to the wealthy — who are also the major recipients of interest on that debt.
America’s wealthy have never been wealthier. If they paid their fair share of taxes, we wouldn’t have such a huge federal debt. And we wouldn’t be paying them so much interest on that debt.
Know what’s happened, and pass it on.
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It.” Read more from Robert Reich at
Fox News Isn’t Engaging in Protected Political Speech. It’s Engaging in Consumer Fraud.
By SABRINA HAAKE
Whenever a new poll comes out showing Trump’s abysmal ratings, public reactions follow a pattern. Public comments don’t question Trump’s disapproval rating. Rather, millions of people question the flip side: how does 38% of the nation still support such an obvious charlatan? Are supporters delusional? Suicidal?
Specifically, does MAGA not know that 15 million Americans, mostly their own, have now lost health insurance because of him? Can they not read the Walmart price tags they hold in their own hands? Do they not know he’s weakening the NATO alliance their granddads fought for, or that he single-handedly empowered one of the most dangerous regimes in the world?
The answer is ‘No, no, and no.’ Nearly 40% of the country—38%, to be exact— can’t connect the dots on who’s making their lives harder. We don’t need another study to figure out why, because it couldn’t be more obvious: As of May 12, 2026, 38% of the nation still supports Trump because 38% of the nation watches Fox News, purveyors of pure Trump propaganda. And compared to other consumers, Fox News viewers do not diversify their sources.
After the 2020 election, the Pew Research Center did a deep dive to learn what Americans heard, perceived and knew about it. Researchers found, for example, that 63% of Fox News viewers had given Trump an “excellent” rating on Covid. Trump suggested injecting bleach into unspecified orifices while over 1 million Americans died, yet Fox viewers thought he did an excellent job??
More accurately it was a con job, perpetrated by Fox News.
Fox News propaganda
Coming into the present news cycle, the Pope-Trump conflict illustrates the con in real time. Pope Leo XIV criticized Trump’s war with Iran by condemning leaders who manipulate religion for military gain. Trump, manifestly devoid of impulse control, immediately shot back on Truth Social that the Pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible for Foreign Policy” as if he were a political adversary. In follow up Fox News Digital interviews, Trump doubled down and refused to apologize as Fox hosts clapped like seals.
While most media outlets questioned Trump’s sanity for attacking the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion people, Fox dissembled with headlines like, “60 Minutes accused of using left-leaning Cardinals to bait Trump into feud with Vatican” and “Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump. When Trump dispatched Marco Rubio to patch things up with the Pope last week, most media reported that it didn’t work, but Fox called it a big success and applauded what a great job Rubio did.
Fox News even tried to accuse other media networks of intentionally ‘baiting’ a response from Trump. They invited Elise Stefanik onto the network to tell Pope Leo XIV to “stay out of politics,” while other guests labelled the Pope’s foreign policy views ‘wrong’ and ‘liberal.’ Sean Hannity questioned whether the Pope fully understood the Iran conflict, and several other Fox commentators questioned whether the Pontiff had “read the Bible” about geocomplexities in Iran. To be clear, not one Fox host questioned whether Trump had “read the map” before he delivered the Strait of Hormuz to the mullahs.
The First Amendment protects political speech but it does not protect fraud
The Pope example alone illustrates how MAGA is being lied to on a daily basis, but it’s just one example. Fox News serves up daily falsehoods about climate change, immigrants, public education, NATO, black crime, ICE, and the war in Iran to craft a pro-Trump narrative, assuming their lies are legally protected by the First Amendment as “political speech.”
Enough damage is now evident to challenge that legal assumption.
In 2010, Supreme Court republicans fast-tracked America’s slide into oligarchy when they ruled in Citizens United that corporate political donations were a form of free speech. Citizens United further clarified that, under the First Amendment, political speech warrants the “highest level of protection against government regulation” following the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan’s restatement, and an earlier ruling that any regulations on political speech must withstand the highest level of strict scrutiny.
But while First Amendment protection for political speech is old news, there’s another long-toothed maxim: The First Amendment does not protect fraud. In 2012, under United States v. Alvarez, the Court confirmed that fraud is a ‘narrowly limited class of speech’ not entitled to First Amendment protection. In Alvarez, the Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a law that made lying about military medals a crime, because no one gained a ‘material advantage’ from the lie. Unless someone is profiting from their false speech, the court ruled, there’s no actionable fraud—they’re simply lying. But false speech connected to economic gain on one side and economic harm on the other is fraud, legally unprotected under the First Amendment.
Under this definition, Fox News is engaged in classic consumer fraud. Fox admitted in the Dominion case that they lied to their viewers for profit, and paid out nearly $1 billion in settlement as a result. But their lies didn’t stop after that case, they continue to sell 24/7 Trump propaganda as ‘news.’ They are perpetrating the same fraud, one that hooks viewers, profiting Fox and their corporate backers, while materially harming victims by convincing them to vote against their own economic interests.
Under Supreme Court precedent, Fox News isn’t engaging in protected political speech. It’s engaging in commercial fraud. And the victims aren’t just Fox viewers, even though studies show they are harmed the most: the entire nation is enduring political violence, extreme division and rumblings of civil war because 38% of the country is being lied to.
Albert Einstein once said, “A people that were to honor falsehood…would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.” Is mere national survival a sufficient justification to return to requiring accuracy in the news? Is it legally sufficient to pass strict scrutiny? If it is not, after a Democrat-run Congress returns to the Fairness Doctrine, this high court will have elevated partisan interests to the point of national suicide.
Sabrina Haake is a trial lawyer in Chicago specializing in First and 14th Amendment defense. She writes at SabrinaHaake.substack.com. See the online linked version of this column at
MAGA Dropouts Are Finally Waking Up To Reality
By DICK POLMAN
Normally I’d rather boil my eyeballs than read a compendium of quotes from MAGA voters. The New York Times, in particular, likes to torture those of us who dwell in factual reality. Every few months there’s another “focus group” of a dozen or so randos, and whenever I try to parse what they’ve opined I am instantly struck with the sensation that I’ve been seat-buckled for a trip to Mars.
So with great trepidation I peeked at the paper’s latest offering, and…whoa, hang on…what do we have here:
Jose, 62, from Florida says, “I thought…he was going to turn the country around and he was going to be a stellar president. But it’s turned out to be a horror movie. I was so wrong with the vote for him.”
Franceska, 26, from Washington state: “I don’t think I’ve really seen much progress toward even moving toward what he said he was going to do.”
Michelle, 45, from Maryland says, “I feel foolish…all of the things that (anti-Trump family members) pointed out would happen have ended up happening And I looked dumb as hell believing in fairy tales.”
Pamela, 65, from Tennessee: “I’m embarrassed for our whole country that this is what we’re dealing with now.”
I really want to be nice to these people. And I will, later in this piece. It’s noteworthy that eight of the 11 participants voiced “regret” about voting for Trump, and 10 graded performance with a D or F. But first I need to vent. I know you’ll understand.
When Nancy, 55, from Arizona said she’d hoped that Trump, in his “second go-around,” would “have better advisers,” my first response was: Did you not notice how he treated sane advisers during his first go-around? In what universe did you think he’d have “better advisers” this time?
Then there’s John, 62, from Maryland, who graded Trump with an F, but nevertheless praised him for pulling us out of the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement, because, in John’s words, “that was accounting for a lot of our budget money.” Good grief. Our annual WHO dues were $111 million, a microscopic sum in a federal budget of $7.4 trillion; and our $1-billion initial commitment to the Paris deal is .0142857 percent of that budget. One can learn these facts with just a few keystrokes. I’ve assigned John a grade of F for critical thinking.
Best of all, however, is Amanda Robbins, a three-time Trump voter from Pennsylvania who has seen the light. She was not in the focus group; an NBC News reporter talked to her recently while she pumped gas at war-inflated prices. She called Trump “a worthless pile of s–” and, with respect to her 2024 vote, “That was my bad.”
She said it, not me.
It does us no good to double down on our anger, to dismiss these people with “we told ya so.” This is a time to take the win and welcome them in.
The latest national poll says 20 percent of Trump’s 2024 voters are pissed about the way he has mishandled inflation. 11 percent have bailed on him entirely, and this poll was conducted before Trump decided to stick taxpayers with a billion-dollar bill for his ballroom. In a nation where elections are so often decided by tight margins, those percentage shifts in sentiment are significant. They’re something to build on. Perhaps Democrats can even be prompted to rethink their messaging and broaden their appeal (which itself is a topic for another day).
I agree with Jesse Lehrich, a former Hillary Clinton advisor who writes a newsletter about the future of the Democratic party. He reportedly says it’s “political malpractice” to dump on the MAGA voters who are dumping on Trump: “Yes, it is totally fair to be frustrated that the people voted for a guy that you think is a fascist … but it is a massive win every time someone reaches the point” of defection … Part of the toxicity of the (Democratic) brand is that we are condescending elites who think we are better than everyone else … But when I see a bunch of former MAGA people so disillusioned, I think to myself, “‘Wow, look at how big our coalition can be.’”
In Nazi-occupied France, disparate factions with little in common – conservative Gaullists and insurgent communists – found ways to work together toward a shared objective. In a national emergency, there’s no other choice. Kitty, the focus group’s Pennsylvanian, had the right idea: “At the end of the day … we need to stick together and make our country stronger.”
In that spirit, paraphrasing Victor Lazlo in Casablanca, I say to her, “Welcome to the fight. This time I know our side will win.”
Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist, alumni of the Philadelphia Inquirer and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes at DickPolman.substack.com and is distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com.
Could Trump Care Less About You and Me?
By JAMIE STIEHM
WASHINGTON — Camelot, it’s not. King Arthur, not even close. Donald Trump is a pretender president who doesn’t even pretend to do right by the people.
In all candor, this city, graced by garden squares, memorials and museums, feels like a crime scene, with his fingerprints everywhere on it. Places we held dear are demolished (the White House East Wing) or closed (the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts). But who knows what’s in the knave’s heart?
Trump also dumped toxic debris from the East Wing site onto a popular public golf course. His visage scowls from windows at passersby on Pennsylvania Avenue. Oh, and he’s painting the Reflecting Pool blue for $13 million.
Surely you’ve heard about the huge arch he wants to build blocking the sightline between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial?
In one dark view, he stopped circulation of the Lincoln penny because he didn’t want daily reminders of the truly great president.
Abraham Lincoln won the Civil War the Confederacy started. Trump didn’t ask or tell anyone outside his circle he’d start an unwinnable war of choice on Iran. It has continued for 75 days and counting, with no end in sight.
Republicans on Capitol Hill told Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth they have serious concerns about spending billions, even trillions, on a rash expeditionary war for no good reason.
Then again, Hegseth is Trump’s pet in the Cabinet, along with wild Bobby Kennedy Jr., who’s waging a war on vaccines within the Health and Human Services department. His cousin Caroline Kennedy said he vaccinated his own children.
Regular families are feeling the pain of higher gas and groceries costs, kitchen table issues. Trump calls affordability a “hoax.” (Same for climate change.) That is a remarkable thing for a president to say.
Farmers say they are stuck in a “perfect storm” with shipments of fertilizer held up in Iran’s blocked Strait of Hormuz. Rural voters are a key Trump constituency, but he doesn’t seem to feel their pain, either.
What Trump does care about is the ballroom he wants to build in the East Wing shambles. He just announced he’d tell Congress he needs an extra $1 billion for security enhancements, flaunting this extravagance while his programs cut food stamps for children and health care for families.
Democrats are fighting mad at Trump and now at the Supreme Court. Watch out for their wrath, as Chief Justice John Roberts virtually destroyed the last vestiges of the Voting Rights Act.
The court struck down House of Representative districts that were drawn to fairly represent Black populations in each state. The Civil Rights movement law brought Blacks to Congress from the South, in a major social reform — or revolution.
For Roberts, this is a lifelong career goal fulfilled. As a young Republican government lawyer, he opposed the landmark legislation. With five Republican Court members, three named by Trump, he led the way to undermining it.
Roberts posed as a “balls and strikes” kind of judicial mind. Now he’s “shocked, shocked” that he’s seen as a racial and political partisan under that cloak and sober mien.
Roberts is our era’s Roger Taney, author of the dreadful Dred Scott 1857 ruling that Blacks could never be citizens with rights.
At least Taney didn’t pretend he wasn’t upholding America’s system of racial oppression. To think that six unelected people should wipe out Black lawmakers’ gains from the South is galling.
At the same time, four members of the Virginia Supreme Court nullified a recent election to redraw the state’s House districts for a more favorable Democratic map. You may ask why.
Yes, it was Trump’s idea in the first place to change and redraw the Texas House delegation to gain more Republican seats in the 2026 midterms. Normally that is done every 10 years, with new Census numbers, but Trump threw the book of rules out.
One problem is that Trump never fights fair. Never. He does what he wants, and he treats his office that way every day.
Here and now is a lesson that could not be clearer. True democracy depends upon a president that tries to please the people.
Jamie Stiehm is a former assignment editor at CBS News in London, reporter at The Hill, metro reporter at the Baltimore Sun and public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. She is author of a new play, “Across the River,” on Aaron Burr. See JamieStiehm.com.
Family Planning in an Age of Anxiety
By CLARENCE PAGE
“Why so few babies?” asked a New York Times essay that sounded oddly familiar to me.
In my college days, it seemed that everybody was talking about “The Population Bomb,” the 1968 best-seller in which Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich predicted worldwide famines and other dire consequences allegedly facing our baby boom generation.
The Times essay, by contributing opinion writer Anna Louie Sussman, is drawn from her forthcoming book “Inconceivable: The Impossibility of Family in an Age of Uncertainty.”
In contrast to Ehrlich, whose predictions fortunately did not play out quite as catastrophically as he predicted, Sussman explores a different troubling situation, the declining birth rate among today’s rising generation of young couples.
In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the nation’s general fertility rate had fallen to its lowest on record — down 1% from 2024 and down 23% from 2007. The fall in teenage fertility is even more stunning. Births per 1,000 females ages 15–19 fell by 7% from 2024 to 2025.
Should we be relieved or alarmed? It’s hard for many of us to remain neutral about these startling statistics. After decades of hand-wringing over “children having children,” perhaps now it’s time to start fretting over the millions of would-be Americans who are absent because falling fertility in all age groups. After all, we’ll need their taxes and labor to sustain us in our old age.
When asked why they’re delaying having kids, many young couples cite economic and job uncertainties, and some cite concerns about politics or general dread about the state of the world.
American conservatives, a group long associated with “family values,” have tried to inspire a “pronatalist” movement, calling for government inducements to get Americans to have more babies. Even the extreme reaches of the online right has taken up pronatalism, albeit as a thinly veiled appeal to produce more white children.
Yet the fertility drop can be seen across racial lines, and according to the latest United Nations study in 2024, it’s a global phenomenon. General fertility worldwide has reached the lowest point ever recorded. In 1960, five children were born to the average woman. In 2024, the figure was 2.2.
A lot of this is transparently economic. Historically, birthrates have tended to decline as incomes rise, regardless of race. But Sussman asks why recent data suggest that even poor women are growing more reluctant to procreate.
In her telling, job insecurity and affordability are certainly a large part of the downward pressure on fertility, but something more seems to be at work: young people’s inescapable and crushing sense that the future is too uncertain for the lifelong commitment of parenthood.
“Call it the vibes theory of demographic decline,” she writes.
I understand. Those of us who have observed political and social trends since the Great Recession — immigration clashes, global trade upheaval, the rise of new forms of addiction, growing political extremism and the like — have searched, largely in vain, for forces or movements that promise to unify Americans again. Add in the headlong rush of the tech and business worlds to adopt artificial intelligence, whose potential effects on jobs, income and general well-being are not wholly cheering, and it’s easy to see why the vibes aren’t good among prospective parents.
Considering just the affordability aspect, targeted government policy could help lift the mood of Americans generally, but would it be enough to move the needle on fertility? Do tax credits and similar policy ideas miss the forest for the trees?
Not surprisingly, at least to me, Sussman finds that certain social groups seem much less troubled by the general pessimism about bringing children into the world: traditional religious communities. Faith and hope, apparently, tend to sustain parents enough, even in the face of a hostile world, that they continue to be fruitful and multiply.
I don’t think we’ll find answers to this problem in old religious, tribal and political models. Yet faith and hope — of a sort — are key to conquering our current pessimism.
A large and growing number of Americans have lost faith in the central institutions of our nation: They don’t trust that our government is honest, impartial and operating within its means. They are losing faith in our charitable and educational institutions, doubting that they remain true to their missions to advance the common good. And many no longer trust our business corporations to serve the public honestly and without harm.
And perhaps most concerning is the declining hope that this age of rapid and disruptive technological change will make our children’s lives more secure and free.
This pessimism is far from universal. Indeed, one of our nation’s greatest assets is its ample strategic reserve of optimism. But we need to listen to what declining birthrates may be telling us and trim our sails accordingly.
Clarence Page is a columnist at the Chicago Tribune. Email him at clarence47page@gmail.com.
Judge Latinos By Facts and Figures, Not Slurs
By MARY SANCHEZ
Latinos are right to feel targeted in 2026.
They are regularly slandered and attacked by policy and political spin.
Some days, it feels like all 68 million of the nation’s Latinos are being swept up in language labeling us as invaders, takers and a host of other mischaracterizations.
Many of the falsehoods are hatched from the Trump administration as justification for ramped up immigration enforcement.
Data has long cut through the negative chatter.
Recent findings must be trumpeted to further disrupt the noise.
The U.S. Latino population generates a stunning $4.4 trillion for the economy, making it equal to the world’s fourth largest gross domestic product, or GDP.
And that’s a 2024 number. It could be higher today.
Measured as a demographic, U.S. Latinos are now economically outperforming almost all other nations, surpassing India and Japan.
Latinos in the U.S. are pursuing college degrees, starting businesses and otherwise participating in the workforce at a faster rate than other ethnicities and racial demographics.
This upward trajectory of Latinos is so strong, an argument can be made that the future of the U.S. is Latino. Realize that how Latinos fare, so goes the nation.
That’s the messaging being promoted through the study that documented the $4.4 trillion figure, work led by the University of California at Los Angeles.
The U.S. Latino GDP Report is regularly updated by the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture, this year, in partnership with California Lutheran University.
“The major economies that our nation competes with — China, Germany, Japan — all have negative labor force growth,” said Paul Hsu, an epidemiologist at UCLA, in press briefings releasing the report. “Only the U.S. sees positive labor force growth, and that growth comes primarily from the Latino population.”
David. E. Hayes-Bautista, director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at UCLA Health, first conceived of the Latino GDP Project in 2004, seeking better ways to document the impact of the community on the nation’s economy.
It’s crucial that people get one fact clear:
The majority of U.S. Latinos are citizens by birth. The growth of the Latino population is not due to migration, not at this point in the nation’s history. It’s the birthrate.
One in every five persons within the nation is Latino.
Their influence is increasing, partially because other demographics are heading in the opposite direction, with population declines.
But it’s not just census counts that matter; it’s how Latinos live, their work ethic and entrepreneurialism.
The Latino growth in GDP is progressing at 6.4%, while for non-Latinos the figure is 2.4%.
There is, of course, a caveat, a harsh reality check to these positives.
And that is the negative impact of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. Latino communities, and labor forces, are being ripped apart.
While the vast majority of the nation’s Latinos are U.S.-born citizens, they might have family members or co-workers who are still in the process of becoming authorized to live and work in the U.S.
As those families are upended with deportations, the ramifications on other U.S. workers and employers could be stark.
Early reporting shows worrisome trends for some job sectors, like construction, where workers are fearful to show up lest they be arrested by immigration agents.
The latest Latino GDP report draws from 2024 data, before the beginning of the second Trump administration.
How much havoc current policies will cause for the nation’s economy is yet to be fully measured. Early indicators are not painting a positive picture.
Despite White House rhetoric, undercutting Latino workers does not increase opportunities for others, nor does it aid the economy.
Also, another recent report showed that the median Latino household has less than one quarter of the wealth of white households.
The Latino Wealth Gap study, released by the Latino Policy & Politics Institute of UCLA and UnidosUS, used historical analysis, policy research and data.
Researchers documented how immigration, housing, labor markets, public benefits and education all played a role through the decades, resulting in the fact that Latino households in 2022 had 22 cents for every dollar of wealth held by White households.
It’s a gap that isn’t being overcome by the slogans that Americans hold dear, adages about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, and the nation’s view of itself as a land of equal opportunity for all.
Latinos are striving for upward mobility, as their measurable GDP shows. In fact, they overperform.
It’s past time that the rest of the nation understands Latino contributions. The nation’s future depends upon it.
Mary Sanchez is a syndicated columnist for Tribune Content Agency, formerly with the Kansas City Star. Email msanchezcolumn@gmail.com and follow on Twitter @msanchezcolumn.
‘Useful idiots’: News Media Edition
By JOHN YOUNG
Before getting to what a brazen billionaire has in mind for CBS News and CNN, let’s talk about Stephen Colbert.
Colbert’s show goes off the air May 21, yanked by CBS in advance of a hostile takeover.
“Economic decision,” said network brass. That’s cheap lunch meat. Colbert has been the late-night leader most of his 10-year run.
No, it’s all about politics — about Colbert’s rip-roaring ripping of the so-easily bruised snowflake in the White House.
David Ellison — whose dad, tech titan Larry Ellison, is a mega Republican donor and pal of the most transactional (i.e. corrupt to the bone) president ever — now rules CBS and CNN with the purchase of Time-Warner Discovery.
A derisive David Letterman calls them the “Ellison Twins.”
Did we say Colbert’s cancellation was about politics? CBS announced it was pulling the plug days after he called a $16 million settlement of a frivolous suit against the network by our rabidly litigious president a “big, fat bribe.”
OK, so who will be the late-night replacement? Not someone who can hold a candle to the brilliant Colbert. Rather, it’s someone who can sign a check.
It’s Byron Allen, who parlayed a modest stand-up career into mega wealth. He didn’t earn the slot so much as purchase it. Yes, he’s hosting his own show, sort of like David Ellison having his own news network. Allen’s is “Comics Unleashed.”
From what I’ve seen of the show, featuring corny repartee by comedians known only to their mothers, all I can say is that late-night viewers are going to get an extra hour of sleep.
Not that Byron Allen is mentally lacking, but he in no way merits this spot. And “merit” in hiring is what MAGA says it is all about in assailing “DEI hires.” Oh, boy.
What’s to become of Colbert’s show and CBS News provides an opportunity for thinking people to employ a fighting acronym — FUI — I have introduced in these spaces for rubber-glue use when Republicans cite “diversity hires.”
DEI? Anyone revolted by the comical hires by this president — the Noems, the Bondis, the Hegseths, the Patels – knows “FUI” is his method.
It stands for “finding useful idiots.”
Say it with me: FUI. Say it often. In the long form: “phooey.”
Idiocracy at the highest federal levels isn’t enough for the right. We now see FUI in the calculated dumbification of CBS, the Tiffany Network — the one that brought us Cronkite and Rather, Letterman and Colbert. Apparently, FUI is coming to CNN as well to please the president.
Never has any leader of CBS, NBC or ABC set out to deliver anything out of the respective news divisions but industry-leading news — credible, accurate, trustworthy.
For generations, credibility has been network news bureaus’ coin. Mistakes? They make ‘em. They also admit them — unlike Faux News and other Big Lie sock puppets on cable.
Our president has said Larry Ellison told him in private that he wants CBS News to be “a more conservative outlet.”
Reportedly, Ellison has said he plans to fire CNN’s on-air figures for not leaning the way he does.
Claims that CBS had a calculated political lean are simply bogus, a long-running Republican fever dream.
But now. Oh, now CBS will have a political lean — an Ellison lean.
We won’t call Bari Weiss an idiot. After all, she was on The New York Times opinion page staff when she bolted over editorial philosophy and started her own online publication, The Free Press.
There she wrote “anti-woke” commentaries that caught the eyes of conservative thought leaders. Or, at least, the Ellison Twins.
Weiss might be brilliant, but she had no experience in TV news. Handing CBS News over to her is like handing an ocean super tanker to a surfer because she “knows the water.”
Weiss is in over her head, reportedly, and CBS’s ratings are sinking.
The president has said several times he expects to get more favorable treatment from the CBS news division now thanks to Weiss and the Ellisons.
To a reporter or news director, those are — or should be — fighting words: any claim that there’s a “company line” in covering the news or handling a newsmaker.
Showing their stripes, the Ellisons hosted a salute to the president, attended by news employees, at which Weiss supped at the table with you-know-who.
If she were worth her stripes as a news executive, Weiss would have excused herself from the situation and the kiss-his-tush glad-handing with, “Mr. President, I’m not an FUI hire.”
John Young is a longtime newspaperman who now lives in Fort Collins, Colo. Email jyoungcolumn@gmail.com. See johnyoungcolumn.com.
Decluttering Till Death Do We Part
By FROMA HARROP
Margareta Magnusson was an artist in Stockholm who wrote a bestselling book, “The Gentle Art of Swedish Death Cleaning.” Decluttering, the removal of unnecessary items from our living spaces, had already become an international obsession. That was doubly so for Americans, whose large houses became easy repositories for the cheap goods arriving by container ship from low-wage countries.
We declutterers had already gotten going 15 years ago, when Marie Kondo, Japan’s high priestess of neatness, came out with her big book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up.” I tried to copy Kondo’s orderly ways. Heaven knows, I tried.
Magnusson went a step further urging possession-burdened Westerners to raid their closets with Viking fervor. Her vision was a Super Bowl of downsizing, urging players to get rid of so many possessions, their heirs won’t have much cleanup when they’re gone.
Magnusson died recently, so how did she do? Not bad, according to reports, though short of perfection. Her attic was empty, but she had left an old bike in the cellar. Magnusson had kept shells she’d collected at the beach as a child, plus three ragged stuffed animals with cute names.
Sure, she’d given away her late husband’s massive tool collection. That was easy — as was shredding old bills. But that business of giving away 10 of her 16 plates because her table could only seat six sounded like mere stagecraft, a colorful detail to sell books.
I have lots of dinnerware, from crockery to fine china, some bought, most inherited. One item is an ancestral beanpot given to me by a long-departed Yankee in-law. I recall her growing incensed when I presented a great-granddaughter, then moving to Boston, with a new beanpot as a clever gift. In that matriarch’s honor, I’ve kept that old beanpot, cracked and laced with lead (though not used).
My sets of plates, teacups and soup tureens take up only one long shelf in the basement. When I’m gone, the clean-out crew can keep what they like and put the rest on eBay or the curb. They may even enjoy the treasure hunt.
Kondo’s mantra was to treat each item as a special, almost living thing, especially for clothes: Pick up a sweater and then ask yourself, in her words, does it “spark joy”? If not, out it goes.
I found “sparking joy” a high hurdle for most of my clothes to clear. I’d hold up a comfy worn bathrobe and think, “I like you well enough, but can’t say you make me do backflips.” Sadly, I’d given away a dress or two after concluding the garment didn’t make my heart soar, only to ask two years later, “Where is it?”
Another Kondo strategy I tried was to fold T-shirts into neat triangles, then store them vertically so you could see them all on opening the drawer. Aha. The origami approach worked, but, I regret to report, it made room for more T-shirts.
Decluttering influencers almost all advise automatically getting rid of any clothing item you haven’t worn in a year. I did some of that for a while, then gave up after being revisited with where-is-it regret.
An evening gown in the attic managed to evade several purges. Not only hadn’t I worn it in years, but the decades-old frock failed the spark-joy test. Then, when I was invited to a formal occasion, I tried on the dress and found it too big. Simple tailoring fixed the problem. I happily wore the gown to the gala. And on returning it to the third-floor closet, I held it up, whispering, “You spark joy.”
Reservations aside, I shall continue decluttering unto death. I just hope it’s in a sober state of mind.
Froma Harrop is a columnist with Creators Syndicate, formerly with the Providence (R.I.) Journal. Follow her on Twitter @fromaharrop. Email fharrop@gmail.com.
Reynolds Is the Worst Governor In My Lifetime
By ART CULLEN
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds can put up her pointy-toe cowboy boots and reflect on 10 years of solid damage done under the golden dome.
She might not be remembered as the worst. The Iowa History Journal ascribes that title to Gov. William L. Harding (1917-1921), who was considered for impeachment for pardoning a rapist from Ida County in which a $5,000 bribe was involved. The Sibley native did not endear himself to Germans, Danes or Norwegians hereabouts when he banned anything but English in public during World War I. When preachers objected, Harding declared, “There is no use in anyone wasting his time praying in languages other than English. God is listening only to the English tongue.”
Harding earned a censure vote from the Iowa House, which fell short of impeachment. These days, such a record might land him a spot in Trump’s Cabinet.
To his credit, Harding founded the Iowa Conservation Commission, predecessor to the Department of Natural Resources.
It probably doesn’t count but the worst would be Henry Atkinson, an Army general who was appointed Iowa’s first governor but resigned before he took office in 1838. He got the appointment for slaughtering and starving Native people in the Black Hawk Wars.
Reynolds is the worst governor of my lifetime, starting in 1957. Norm Erbe of Boone might have won the award were it not for his defeat just two years into office at the hands of Harold Hughes of Ida Grove, the best governor of my lifetime. He launched the community college system and allowed bars to serve whiskey as God intended.
Reynolds, 66, is wrapping up 10 years as governor with a record that should be remembered for how it dragged Iowa backwards. Her final legislative session should leave fellow conservatives nonplused with a property tax reform built of Swiss cheese and no action on eminent domain.
She touts cutting and flattening income taxes at 3.8% as her proudest accomplishment. That singular feat is driving up property taxes, building billion-dollar annual deficits and eroding public education.
Rural health care access is clamming up as clinics close and specialists flee. Cancer rates are rising. Immigrants are afraid. Village main streets fall to the bulldozer. The park ranger got evicted. The Storm Lake Marina was left to neglect by the DNR. Our roads are terrible.
Last in economic growth. Among the leaders in brain drain. Tuition at an Iowa public university is twice that of Nebraska, heaven help us. Our average incomes are far behind Minnesota.
With a legacy like that, you can see why Reynolds is not running for re-election. She staunchly maintains her position as the most unpopular governor in America, according to the Morning Consult polling.
Norm Erbe bragged about banning books as attorney general. Reynolds blows him out of the saddle with state laws ordering schools to act as censors. Her hostility to gays and to immigrants is so ignorant it is shocking, but that is how far Iowa has reverted into hickdom. We are denying civil rights protections to certain people because of who they are. It is un-American and certainly not worthy of Iowa’s general tradition of tolerant, suppressed racism and homophobia.
Reynolds’s heir apparent, Randy Feenstra, is just as cynical. His ads hate on immigrants just fine. Feenstra, our congressman from Hull, is the Establishment man. Candidate Adam Steen is promoted by the evangelicals. Zach Lahn might have a corner on the GOP populists by thrashing Big Ag and speaking in coded culture language. This thing could go to a nominating convention. It is not exactly an orderly exit for Reynolds, who was handed her job by the dean of governors, Terry Branstad.
Branstad was not even close to the worst as Democrats driven to desperation by him would claim. He was friendly and honest. He got us through the farm crisis. We could have done without his second iteration where he threw in with Trump. Branstad was okay. Steady. He certainly understood small-town Iowa, and he respected those who differed with him. Reynolds makes him look better and kinder.
Tom Vilsack was fantastic for Storm Lake. His administration funded King’s Pointe Resort, built the Storm Lake Marina and got the lake dredged. He was a great governor who worked with Republican Senate Leader Jeff Lamberti. It was a different era not so far back.
Chet Culver got caught up in a nasty national recession. It wasn’t his fault. Bad timing for a good man. He called on Iowa to develop alternative sources of energy, which looks awfully smart for the Big Lug by today’s demands.
Bob Ray defined Iowa Nice. He presided over a golden era of expansion and excellence in higher education, closing his career as president of Drake University.
Rob Sand should be the next governor. He is a Democrat. Sand is not stridently partisan. He tries to act like an independent and talks like a straight shooter. Iowa needs to set the navigation back to middle of the road. Sand is on the right track. He’s no Harold Hughes, but Sand would be a huge relief from the onslaught to our basic values.
Art Cullen is publisher and editor of The Storm Lake Times Pilot in northwest Iowa (stormlake.com). He won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing in 2017 and is author of the book “Storm Lake: A Chronicle of Change, Resilience, and Hope from America’s Heartland, ” released by Viking Press in 2018, and “Dear Marty, We Crapped In Our Nest: Notes from the Edge of the World,” released by Ice Cube Press of North Liberty, Iowa, in September. Email times@stormlake.com.
Worse and More of It
By ALAN GUEBERT
On the farm of my youth, our full-time field worker, Jackie, didn’t say much. When he did, however, he often offered creative euphemisms and descriptive epigrams. A favorite, for example, was if it rained the day after a big gully-washer, he might say the second rain was “Just worse and more of it.”
That useful phrase comes to mind when examining what the Trump Administration has done–and continues to do–with and to the Department of Agriculture (USDA). From DOGE 15 months ago to a late winter run-in with the United Soybean Board, its often unexplained actions are both petty and consequential.
For example, it was recently revealed that the White House reached way down into the routine, mundane approval process of five nominees to the soybean checkoff’s operating body, the United Soybean Board, to deny all five their well-earned seats.
Why? The White House gave no explanation for this historic meddling but, as Reuters first pointed out, four of the five were women.
And not just any women, as Chris Clayton of DTN explained in a lengthy post on May 1: “Each of the farmers who lost their seats on the USB are not only active farmers but also have a long history of volunteer work for state and national soybean boards… [and] had done significant… USB work in recent years.”
In other words, these five were not only ideal USB members, all were sitting USB members when the White House tossed their renominations. Two of the four rejected women also pointed out to Clayton that “2026 happens to be the United Nations’ International Year of the Woman Farmer.”
Talk about worse and more of it.
Then there’s the ongoing “reorganization” of USDA.
On April 23, USDA announced it will move both technical and administrative staff from the Washington-based Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Economic Research Service (ERS), the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to either St. Louis or Kansas City.
USDA also noted that it plans to shutter the Beltsville, MD Agricultural Research Center, the department’s showcase, 6,600-acre research facility located on the northeast corner of Washington’s famed Beltway.
The moves promise more chaos and disruption in USDA’s shrinking ability to deliver its hundreds of programs and billions of dollars in farm and food assistance. NASS, for example, is already under fire for bungling 2025 crop surveys. ERS–partially moved to Kansas City in 2019 under the first Trump Administration–is hobbled by an inability to attract and keep top talent.
Real estate developers–a former one works in the Oval Office, remember–have long seen USDA’s 10-square mile Maryland research center as a valuable prize barely 10 miles from the White House. Is that its fate: not applied ag research but boxy condominiums?
There are, of course, worse outcomes for other White House actions. For example, a key foreign food aid program American farmers benefited greatly from, USAID, was targeted by DOGE in early 2025. Two months later, more than 80 percent of the humanitarian agency, which had purchased nearly $2 billion of U.S. crops every year for foreign distribution, had been vaporized.
The USAID cuts offered cover to others like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada to cut their foreign assistance aid shortly thereafter.
Collectively, however, a February study published in The Lancet, England’s leading medical journal, “projects that global aid cuts could lead to at least 9.4 million additional deaths by 2030, if the current funding trends continue.”
And, “About 2.5 million of those deaths are projected to be children under the age of 5.”
That’s worse than worse and more of it.
Alan Guebert is an agricultural journalist who was raised on an Illinois dairy farm and worked as a writer and senior editor at Professional Farmers of America and Successful Farming magazine and is now a contributing editor to Farm Journal magazine. See past columns, supporting documents, and contact information at farmandfoodfile.com
JIM HIGHTOWER
Democrats: Don’t Forget That You’re Supposed to Be a Party!
Washington’s Democratic Party establishment keeps demanding that progressive members tone down their criticism of billionaire oligarchs and corporate autocrats. Why? Because the insiders want to rebrand the party as ideologically moderate. “Time to get serious,” they bark.
Two things: First, on the ideology question, I’m with Woody Guthrie: “Right-wing, left-wing, chicken wing,” he said. I think Woody meant that most workaday people don’t put 10 cents’ worth of faith in doctrinaire promises from political ideologues. Rather, they’re looking for honest answers to the old labor song: “Which side are you on” -- the bosses, bankers, and billionaires or the rest of us?
Second, on the matter of seriousness, I find that both the Democratic Party and the larger progressive movement have gotten way too serious. They’ve become lost in their latest 21-point plan, email “outreach” strategies, hourly fundraising targets, Zoom meet-ups, and other digitized corporate metrics for how to manipulate politics.
But wait -- what is “politics”? My dictionary says it’s “The science and art of forming a community effort to seek and exercise power in public affairs.” Why would we try to make such a spirited, unifying, social pursuit into a rote, tedious, manipulative “game”? Instead, what if Democrats actually brought people together, not to recite pre-cut positions, but around community interests? And let’s create events that people (especially newcomers) might want to go to -- mix the politics and issues with a little food, beer, and wine, live music, and ... well, fun.
When I first ran for office, my lifelong co-conspirator, Susan DeMarco, came up with the perfect expression for such politicking. She said, “Let’s put the party back in politics!”
THE SAD BALLAD OF THE BIG FOOL
Years ago, when America was mired in the horror of the Vietnam War, Pete Seeger wrote a lament about the stupidity and vanity of leaders who keep plunging us into such mindless disasters. It was a song about the Big Muddy:
“The captain told us to ford a river,
That’s how it all begun.
We were knee deep in the Big Muddy
But the big fool said to push on.
“It’ll be a little soggy, but just keep slogging
We’ll soon be on dry ground.
We were waist deep in the Big Muddy,
And the big fool said to push on.
“All we need is a little determination.
Men, follow me, I’ll lead.
We were neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.”
Unfortunately, the big fool is back, this time miring our nation in another of those witless wars of choice that he had ridiculed when running for President. But, doing the bidding of Israel’s corrupt government, Trump attacked Iran. He blustered that the “skirmish” would be over in days, Iran would surrender everything, our gasoline prices would go down, peace would blossom throughout the Middle East, and world leaders would rally ‘round America.
None of that happened. Instead, Trump has splurged 25 billion of our dollars on this foray (so far), Iran’s leadership has outwitted Trump’s feckless Pentagon chief, and they now control the global price of oil.
To divert attention from the embarrassment of his needless war, our huckster-in-chief is now doing PR events touting the “grandeur” of that billion-dollar luxury ballroom he wants to tack onto our White House -- a rich-boy add-on that only the billionaire class will go into.
This is Jim Hightower saying ... of all the things America actually needs, he is focused on a sparkly ballroom. And the big fool says to push on.
Jim Hightower is a former Texas Observer editor, former Texas agriculture commissioner, radio commentator and populist sparkplug, a best-selling author and winner of the Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship. Write him at info@jimhightower.com or see www.jimhightower.com.
In Defense of Michael Jackson
By ELWOOD WATSON
Even in death, Michael Jackson stokes controversy.
Like millions of other people, I decided to see the recent film, “Michael.” Despite abrasively brutal reviews, the film has broken the record for the biggest opening in biopic history and garnered more than $400 million since its release. The film recounts Jackson’s life, from the inaugural pioneering days of the Jackson Five, terrorized by belt-wielding dad Joe, to his emergence as a stunningly original, globally adored solo act, culminating in the colossal Wembley Stadium concert in 1988.
I was a huge Michael Jackson fan. From the time I was a teenager, I rabidly purchased all of his albums. Even today as a late middle-aged man, I consider him on of the greatest entertainers to ever live. On the very evening of his passing on June 25, 2009, I received a call from one of my siblings asking me how I was feeling. She knew how much I admired the King of Pop.
Unfortunately, rather than focusing on Jackson’s positive accomplishments, such as donating millions of dollars to various charities and altruistic efforts, there are those — mostly detractors — who seem more content to ruminate on what they perceived as the negative aspects of Jackson’s life. “He was a self-hating Black man. “He was probably a pedophile.” “He was a drug addict.” “His marriages were a sham.”
The list goes on and on.
For all of his supposed reluctance to embrace his racial heritage, Jackson did not hesitate to confront the issue of race. Such cultural impositions were evident in such songs as “Black or White” and “Heal the World.” There are numerous examples of him shattering racial barriers, stealthily and brazenly promoting Black culture, and forcing his doubters to concede he suffered from vitiligo, a rare disorder that caused his skin to develop white patches.
The same can be said for many of Jackson’s non-Black critics, who often turn a blind eye to the pathological behavior of celebrities of their own ethnic group while denouncing Jackson as some freak of nature. While Jackson did settle out of court a lawsuit alleging child molestation, he did not admit to guilt. In his 2005 trial, he was acquitted of all charges by an all-White jury. Macaulay Culkin testified Jackson never abused him and later reaffirmed that publicly. Emmanuel Lewis defended Jackson repeatedly. Corey Feldman stated Jackson never acted inappropriately toward him personally, while also supporting alleged victims being heard.
Additionally, all throughout his illustrious career, there was no hard evidence Michael Jackson was a habitual user of drugs. It was because of his image as a drug-free celebrity (which was almost an oxymoron in Hollywood during the 1980s and mid-1990s) that he was invited to the White House in 1984 by then-president Ronald Reagan to receive an award and to serve as a spokesperson for former first lady Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” to drugs campaign.
Unlike many of his fans, many media critics and other personal detractors resented a pageantry of artistic accomplishments. They hungered and longed for scandal. They craved sordid allegations, tabloid drama, gut-wrenching courtroom tension, and fierce spectacle. But supporters from across the globe went to the theatre to embrace the music, the artist, the genius, the renaissance performer, and the ongoing legacy, coupled with the reminder that Michael Jackson remains one of the most distinctive celebrities in modern history.
Could Michael Jackson have handled some of his public relations better than he did? Certainly. Like a number of people, Michael Jackson was eccentric. However, being nonconformist is not a crime, nor does it mean he was all the retrograde things his opponents made him out to be.
The reality is a notable degree of criticism directed toward Jackson was due to racial hostility and resentment. Love him or hate him, there is no doubt he was one of the most talented entertainers the world has ever seen. As the Rev Al Sharpton commented at Jackson’s memorial service in 2009, “Thank you, Michael.”
I concur. May he continue to rest in peace.
Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. HIs columns are distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. He is also an author and public speaker.
Police Failed Katelyn Hall. So Did America’s Health Care System.
By BONNIE JEAN FELDKAMP
On March 27, the Louisville Metro Police Department in Louisville, Kentucky, responded to a 911 call requesting help for someone experiencing a mental health emergency. When police arrived, Katelyn Hall had locked herself in the bathroom with the intention of harming herself.
At last week’s Bishop’s Table — a weekly community forum — I listened to Katelyn’s mother, Rebecca, recount what happened that night. Rebecca is grieving now because what began as a call for help ended with Katelyn losing her life. LMPD shot and killed Katelyn when she came out of the bathroom holding a large sharp object — a shard of porcelain.
In Breonna Taylor’s Louisville, it’s hard to have faith in the police department. The community’s skepticism is valid. But there’s a complicating factor that also caught my attention in Katelyn’s story. Katelyn’s mental health emergency was rooted in the fact that she could no longer afford her medication. Her health insurance had lapsed. As an accomplished woman with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a minor in psychology, Katelyn understood the stakes.
Five years ago Katelyn was diagnosed with Bipolar II disorder as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She worked with a therapist and took her medication. Prior authorization requirements already made access to care difficult for her, then when she changed jobs in February, insurance lapsed and she could not afford the $2,000 price tag on her prescriptions. Her health spiraled, leading her to her death at the hands of Louisville police.
Police officers should not have to navigate mental health crises they are inadequately trained for. However, because of our United States health care system, scenarios like Katelyn’s will only become more frequent.
I know what it’s like to fight for access to medication even while insured. Prior authorization requirements hijack patient care from doctors. Now add that One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, and according to the American Medical Association, more than 10 million people could lose health insurance coverage by 2034. This collective hardship is about to strain every corner of our communities.
Katelyn should have never been in the position where she even had to consider forgoing her life-saving medication due to financial status. If this sounds hyperbolic then let me remind you she is dead, and just maybe if her health care was affordable, that mental health crisis would have never happened and she’d still be here.
When I was first diagnosed with autoimmune arthritis, I spent six months bedridden because I could not walk unassisted or without crippling pain. While I jumped through the hoops my health insurance required of me in order to gain access to the expensive medication my rheumatologist recommended, I lost my job and my quality of life. I am hyperaware that without health insurance I would not be able to afford the biologic injections that keep me healthy. My health would deteriorate quickly and I’d end up back in bed.
Health care should not be treated as a privilege. It should be considered a foundational right. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and we somehow cannot figure out universal health care the way that 124 other countries already have. The downstream effects of this disparity touch literally everything.
Make no mistake: A person in crisis should not have to worry that making a 911 call could be the choice that kills them or someone they love.
“My baby deserved help,” Rebecca said. “She did not deserve bullets.”
Rebecca is right: Her daughter deserved help. Not just from the police, but from our health care system. Katelyn’s death serves as a warning about what happens when medical care functions as a privilege for those with financial means. When people lose access to medication and therapies, the consequences do not stay confined to the doctor’s office. If we truly want fewer mental health tragedies, then we must demand more than police reform. We cannot keep pretending these are separate conversations. Every lawmaker who votes to strip health care coverage, every insurer that places cost above care and every system that makes life-saving treatment inaccessible shares responsibility for the lives lost as a result.
Bonnie Jean Feldkamp is a wife, mother and former opinion editor at the Louisville Courier-Journal. She is an ambassador of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists. Find her on social media @WriterBonnie, or email her at Bonnie@WriterBonnie.com. Check out her weekly YouTube videos at https://www.youtube.com/bonniejeanfeldkamp
Why Was Hunter’s Cup of Coffee a National Crisis but Trump’s $5 Billion Grift Isn’t?
Republicans spent years manufacturing outrage over Hunter Biden while Trump openly turned the presidency into a billionaire’s cash machine…
By THOM HARTMANN
Back in 2019, Donald Trump pointed at Hunter Biden’s brief “cup of coffee” with a Chinese banker during a 2013 ride on Air Force Two and turned it into the single biggest line of attack he ran against Joe Biden for the next five years.
The grift! The corruption! The selling-out of America! Oh, the humanity!!!
Trump told Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo that Hunter “walked out of China with $1.5 billion” because his father was vice president, even though no evidence ever surfaced that the elder Biden touched his son’s business dealings, nor that Hunter ever pocketed anything close to that sum.
This week, Donald Trump landed in Beijing for a three-day summit with Xi Jinping with his son Eric and daughter-in-law Lara on Air Force One, alongside more than a dozen of the wealthiest CEOs in America: Elon Musk of Tesla, Tim Cook of Apple, Larry Fink of BlackRock, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, Jensen Huang of Nvidia, and many others.
The Trump Organization, which Eric runs, has flirted with Chinese business deals for years, and Eric’s American Bitcoin company works directly with Chinese crypto-mining giant Bitmain.
Hunter Biden’s cup of coffee looks like a teetotaler’s glass of water next to this rolling roadshow of self-dealing, where every executive on board is openly there to negotiate his own deal while Beijing’s officials size up the willingness of the family of the most powerful man in the world to sell out America for a few billion dollars.
That’s the thing about Trump. He brags about corruption, lives on corruption, and treats every lever of the federal government as a personal slot machine, yet because he yelled “drain the swamp” loud enough in 2016, half the country still believes he’s the guy fighting the corrupt part of the establishment.
He isn’t fighting it; he is it, only stupider, more openly larcenous, and more contemptuous of the public good than anyone who’s ever held the office.
Consider what he’s done just in recent months.
In January, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and the Treasury Department, agencies he himself runs, over the leak of his tax returns during his first term while his own appointees were running the IRS. He’s suing himself, in other words, for damages he then expects his own Justice Department to pay him out of taxpayer money.
According to reporting in The New York Times and New Republic, Trump’s DOJ is now negotiating a settlement that may include dropping all IRS audits of Trump, his family, and his businesses, which would amount to a get-out-of-tax-fraud-free card signed by the very man whose taxes the IRS is required by law to audit every year.
ABC News is now reporting that he also wants $1 billion to give to the January 6 rioters. Perhaps as prepayment for his “army” that will attack people during this November’s elections?
This is naked corruption on a scale we’ve never seen. The federal government’s now a personal piggy bank for one criminal man and his violent cult.
Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren rightly called it “a shameless and transparent act of corruption that should make any American’s head spin.”
Trump’s corruption extends to his civil debts too. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied his motion to undo the $83 million defamation judgment won by E. Jean Carroll, whom a jury found Trump had sexually abused and then defamed.
Now Trump’s lawyers are floating a brand new theory: maybe the Department of Justice should substitute itself as the defendant under the Westfall Act, on the theory that defaming a woman he raped “is part of the official duties of the President of the United States.”
Because the federal government can’t be sued for defamation, this would vaporize Carroll’s judgment entirely and let Trump walk away free. Trump’s corrupted DOJ, naturally, is willing to argue it. That’s what happens when you corrupt the Justice Department into your personal law firm.
The same corrupt Justice Department is also doubling as Trump’s corrupt personal revenge machine. There’s been a fresh corrupt indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over a beach photograph of seashells that prosecutors claim, against all credulity, was a coded threat to kill Trump.
The DOJ corruptly raided John Bolton’s home and indicted him on classified documents charges.
They corruptly went after what they called the “Seditious Six,” the Democratic lawmakers who recorded a video reminding service members they have a duty to refuse illegal orders, until a grand jury embarrassingly refused to indict.
Senator Adam Schiff is being corruptly investigated by the DOJ for alleged mortgage fraud that his attorneys call “transparently false, stale, and long debunked,”
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is under a corrupt investigation, New York Attorney General Letitia James is under a corrupt investigation, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was under a corrupt investigation until even Trump’s corrupt Republican allies told him the optics were getting bad before the midterms.
That’s the corrupt behavior of authoritarian regimes, not constitutional republics. But corrupt Republicans appear just fine with all of it.
Meanwhile, the Trump family’s corrupt World Liberty Financial crypto empire has cleared something north of $5 billion in valuation after a flood of corrupt foreign and corporate money, including a $2 billion stablecoin deal from a state-owned Emirati fund that, as 60 Minutes reported, corruptly routed itself through a coin issued by the president’s sons.
Shortly afterward, Trump corruptly pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who had pled guilty to money-laundering crimes that included moving funds for Hamas, Iranian-linked terrorists, and child sexual abusers. He has apparently helped the Trump family business; former DOJ pardon attorney Liz Oyer called the Zhao pardon, simply, “corruption.”
And the corrupt $400 million White House ballroom? It’s funded by Lockheed Martin (with $33 billion in federal contracts in 2025 alone), BlackRock, Google’s parent Alphabet (after settling a $24.5 million lawsuit/shakedown with Trump), Palantir, Coinbase, and a parade of crypto firms, tobacco giants, and defense contractors whose names the White House corruptly tried to keep secret until a court ordered disclosure.
Every one of those companies has business in front of the federal government Trump personally oversees, and every check is a bribe by any honest definition of the word.
This corruption is the political opportunity of a generation, and I keep waiting for Democrats to wake up to it.
Péter Magyar just defeated Viktor Orbán in Hungary by running a Navalny-style anti-corruption campaign on the single through-line of criticizing the “state capture system” Orbán built with his billionaire cronies. …
(See the rest of the column online, with links, at
)
See Heather Cox Richardson’s Letter from an American at
See more progressive news at https://www.dailykos.com/ and https://www.commondreams.org/
Help The Progressive Populist Sustainability Fund
As the costs of publishing and distributing newsmagazines continue to rise, please help us shore up our financial reserves so we can keep The Progressive Populist affordable for readers with limited funds.
Send a check to The Progressive Populist, PO Box 487, Storm Lake, IA 50588. Or donate to The Progressive Populist account at PayPal (https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=3DVZ48972B368) or GoFundMe.com (https://gofund.me/be389e3a). Thanks.
Copyright © 2026 The Progressive Populist
The Progressive Populist is edited by Jim Cullen. Email populist@usa.net.
See selections from the current issue of The Progressive Populist at <http://www.populist.com> and The Progressive Populist blog at <http://progressivepopulist.blogspot.com/>.