The New START Treaty at 15: A Crossroads for Nuclear Disarmament

Rather than turning back from the brink of nuclear war, nuclear armed states are accelerating nuclear weapons spending. We must change course.

Anti-nuclear weapons activists demonstrate outside of the the Kluczynski Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois.
(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Danny Hall
May 03, 2025

Common Dreams

On April 8, 2010, the United States and Russia signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), a landmark achievement that capped and reduced deployed nuclear arsenals, symbolizing hope for a safer, more stable world. Now, 15 years later, as the expiration of New START approaches in February 2026, the risks of a renewed nuclear arms race loom large. Over the past four years, repeated Russian threats to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine have dramatically weakened the “nuclear taboo.” The risk of a potentially civilization-ending nuclear war has risen to levels some experts say is at least has high as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Rather than turning back from the brink of nuclear war, nuclear armed states are accelerating nuclear weapons spending. The U.S. alone is estimated to spend $756 billion on nuclear weapons in the next ten years.

Amid this urgent landscape, the just introduced McGovern-Tokuda resolution -H.Res.317 provides a transformative framework to confront these challenges, offering a comprehensive roadmap toward a world free of nuclear weapons as a national security imperative. Reps. McGovern and Tokuda understand that the story of nuclear weapons will have an ending. It will either be the end of nuclear weapons or the end of human civilization. We have been incredibly fortunate throughout the nuclear weapons era. As Robert McNamara famously declared after the Cuban Missile Crisis, “We lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war.”

Hoping for good luck is not an acceptable security policy and, sooner or later, our luck will run out.

The policies of the nuclear weapons states are essentially a hope that this luck will continue. But hoping for good luck is not an acceptable security policy and, sooner or later, our luck will run out. As William Perry has warned: “nuclear weapons no longer provide for our security, they endanger it.”

Comprehensive Roadmap Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

House Resolution 317 is not merely a legislative initiative; it is a bold declaration of humanity's collective determination to eliminate nuclear weapons and secure a future without weapons that risk the end of human civilization. This resolution encapsulates the vision ofBack from the Brink, a grassroots movement unwavering in its mission to abolish the global nuclear threat. Building upon its steadfast advocacy, the coalition sees this legislation as a step forward in the fight for global disarmament and an unequivocal commitment to a nuclear-free future. Back from the Brink has supported initiatives to reduce nuclear risks, including the prior version of this resolution during the 118th Congress. Now leading efforts to rally support for the new resolution, the coalition recognizes this legislation as a vital step toward global disarmament.

The resolution complements the Foster resolution,H.Res.100, by calling for arms control negotiations with Russia and China while maintaining a focus on broader disarmament efforts. It explicitly opposes nuclear testing, supports theRadiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), to address the legacy of harm caused by nuclear weapons, and prioritizes a just economic transition for the nuclear labor force. Denise Duffield of Back from the Brink encapsulates the resolution’s importance: “The McGovern-Tokuda resolution is more than a statement—it’s a detailed, actionable roadmap to nuclear disarmament. It provides a clear strategy for reducing nuclear risks, ending outdated policies, championing justice for impacted communities, and advancing a future free from the threat of nuclear war.”

 Call for Leadership and Cooperation

TheArms Control Association and theCouncil for a Livable World are among the notable organizations supporting the McGovern-Tokuda resolution. Their endorsements underscore the resolution’s potential to restore U.S. leadership in reducing nuclear dangers. Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, emphasizes, “This timely resolution outlines a practical plan for action to restore U.S. leadership to lead the world back from the nuclear brink and build a safer world for our children and generations to come.”

John Tierney, Executive Director of the Council for a Livable World, points out the pragmatic benefits of the resolution, stating, “We cannot risk letting nuclear threats increase. That is why Council for a Livable World supports Congressman McGovern’s H.Res.317 to lower nuclear risks and promote diplomacy to work toward a world free from nuclear threats.”

Addressing the Legacy of Harm

The resolution goes beyond arms control and disarmament negotiations—it addresses the devastating legacy of economic harm caused by nuclear weapons, both past and present. Today, the United States spends billions annually on nuclear weapons programs, diverting critical resources away from urgent human and community needs. According to this year'snuclear spending tax calculator, the U.S. allocated over $94 billion to nuclear weapons programs in FY 2024 alone. These funds could have been used to fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program for seven years or fund HUD’s mandatory affordable housing programs for nine years. Instead, this spending perpetuates environmental contamination, denies justice to impacted communities, and undermines investments in education, healthcare, and sustainable development. The McGovern-Tokuda resolution offers a path to redirect these resources toward building a safer, more equitable future.

The United States spends billions annually on nuclear weapons programs, diverting critical resources away from urgent human and community needs.

It also addresses the devastating legacy of radiological impacts. From environmental contamination to human exposure, the communities and workers affected by nuclear weapons production and testing deserve justice, healthcare, and full remediation. Martha Dina Argüello of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles describes the resolution as “a truly comprehensive nuclear disarmament framework—one that addresses the past and current harm caused by nuclear weapons and the need to care for and provide a just economic transition for the people and communities whose livelihoods depend on nuclear weapons.”

The Time to Act Is Now

The 15th anniversary of New START is a powerful reminder of what can be achieved through bold leadership and collective action. As the treaty’s expiration looms and the threat of nuclear catastrophe grows, the stakes could not be higher. The McGovern-Tokuda resolution provides a clear and actionable path to eliminate these risks, but success depends on all of us. Now is the time to take a stand. Join theBack from the Brink campaign to amplify this critical call for nuclear disarmament. Get involved, raise your voice, and rally your community to support this transformative resolution. Together, we can build a future free of nuclear weapons—one that saves the world and imbues our lives with profound hope and meaning. Take action today—the world is counting on you.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Danny Hall Director of Public Affairs for Soka Gakkai International-USA (SGI-USA) and a Back from the Brink Steering Committee Member, reflects on the courageous actions faith leaders have taken in recent months to build international solidarity and urge political leaders to take tangible steps toward disarmament. He argues that Congress must listen to these leaders and pass H. Res. 77, which supports the goals and provisions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Full Bio >

World’s military spending rises at highest rate in nearly four decades, report says

Brad Lendon, CNN
Tue, April 29, 2025 


The F-35 fighter jet program accounted for more than $60 billion of US military spending in 2024, according to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. - Clement Mahoudeau/AFP/Getty ImagesMore


The world is arming itself at the fastest rate since near the end of the Cold War, according to a new report, as major wars rage in Ukraine and Gaza and military tensions spike from Europe to Asia.

The 9.4% year-on-year rise to $2.718 trillion in global military spending in 2024 is the highest figure ever recorded by the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in its annual report – which warned there’s no end in sight to the spiraling global arms race. That is the highest rise since 1988, the year before the Berlin Wall fell.

“Many countries have also committed to raising military spending, which will lead to further global increases in the coming years,” the report said.

The United States remains by far the world’s biggest military spender – almost a trillion dollars in 2024, the report said.

Big ticket items in the US budget included F-35 stealth fighters and their combat systems ($61.1 billion), new ships for the US Navy ($48.1 billion), modernizing the US nuclear arsenal ($37.7 billion) and missile defense ($29.8 billion).

The US budget included $48.4 billion in aid for Ukraine, almost three-quarters of Kyiv’s own defense budget of $64.8 billion.

China followed the US in overall military spending with an estimated $314 billion, just under a third of the US total, the report said.

It did not break down Beijing’s spending by weapons or command, but noted China “unveiled several improved capabilities in 2024, including new stealth combat aircraft, uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) and uncrewed underwater vehicles.”

“China also continued to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal in 2024,” the report said.

Together, Washington and Beijing accounted for almost half of the world’s military spending in 2024, the report said.

But countries involved in – or wary of – regional conflicts showed the biggest increases in spending year over year.

Israel, which launched an invasion of the Palestinian territory of Gaza in 2023, showed a whopping 65% increase in military spending in 2024.

Heavy bombs from the US arrive in Port Ashdod, Israel, on February 16, 2025. The US provided Israel with $10.6 billion in supplemental military aid in 2024, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says. - Israeli Ministry of DefenseMore

Meanwhile, Russia, which invaded Ukraine in 2022, showed an estimated increase of at least 38%, but the SIPRI noted that figure was likely higher as Moscow augments military coffers with money from regional and other sources.

The more than three-year-long conflict in Ukraine has seen NATO countries significantly boost their military budgets in response to Russia’s belligerence and as US President Donald Trump presses Europe and the US-led alliance to be more responsible for their defense, saying they’ve been taking advantage of the United States for too long.

Germany, with the world’s fourth-largest defense budget, upped its spending by 28%. Romania (43%), the Netherlands (35%), Sweden (34%), the Czech Republic (32%), Poland (31%), Denmark (20%), Norway (17%), Finland (16%), Turkey (12%) and Greece (11%), were the other NATO members among the top 40 defense spenders worldwide who showed double-digit increases in 2024.

“The rapid spending increases among European NATO members were driven mainly by the ongoing Russian threat and concerns about possible US disengagement within the alliance,’ said Jade Guiberteau Ricard, researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

But analysts said it may take more than money for US allies in Europe to become militarily self-sufficient.

“It is worth saying that boosting spending alone will not necessarily translate into significantly greater military capability or independence from the USA. Those are far more complex tasks,” Guiberteau Ricard said in a press release.

In the Indo-Pacific, the SIPRI said China’s 7% increase in 2024 marked the 30th consecutive year-over-year rise in spending for the People’s Liberation Army, “the largest unbroken streak recorded” in the institute’s database, the report said.

“China’s military build-up has also influenced the military policies of its neighbors, prompting many of them to increase spending,” it said.

Japan’s military budget rose 21% in 2024 – Tokyo’s largest increase since 1952. That brought military spending to 1.4% of gross domestic product, the biggest chunk of Japan’s economy devoted to the military since 1958.

The Philippines, embroiled with China in territorial disputes in the South China Sea, increased its defense spending 19%.

Philippine marines board a ship during a joint visit, board and seizure exercise with their US and South Korean counterparts with members of Japan's Self-Defense Forces as observers, during training in Ternate town, Cavite province, west of Manila, on October 22, 2024. - Ted Aljibe/AFP/Getty ImagesMore

And though spending in South Korea went up only 1.4% in 2024, Seoul has the “highest military burden in East Asia,” at 2.6% of GDP, the institute said.

Taiwan, an island democracy of some 23 million people that the Chinese Communist Party claims as its own and has vowed to seize by force if necessary, increased its defense budget by only 1.8% last year, but Taipei’s military spending is up 48% since 2015, the report said.

India, meanwhile, had the world’s fifth-largest defense budget ($86.1 billion) in 2024. New Delhi’s increase over 2023 was only 1.6%, but the country’s defense spending is up 42% over the past decade, indicative of a troubling trend, researchers said.

“Major military spenders in the Asia–Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities,” Nan Tian, director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme, said. “With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral.”

Also in Asia, Myanmar, which has seen internal conflict since a military coup in 2021, increased spending by 66% in 2024. At 6.8% of its GDP, Myanmar maintains the largest military burden in the Asia-Pacific, the report said.

Military expenditures in Africa were up 3% overall in 2024. Algeria is the continent’s biggest spender, while ranking 20th worldwide.

In the Americas, Mexico showed a 39% surge in military spending in 2024, “reflecting the government’s increasingly militarized response to organized crime,” the report said.

CNN.com



Europe Is Racing to Build Its Own Version of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex

Jon Sindreu
Thu, May 1, 2025 

WALL STREET JOURNAL


Spotters take pictures of a Dutch Air Force Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jet fighter. - JOHN THYS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES


America’s vast military-industrial complex has many critics. For Europe, it is now something to aspire to.

This week, Germany asked the European Union to invoke an emergency clause exempting defense investment from spending rules, as part of the bloc’s five-year rearmament plan. Global defense expenditure experienced the highest year-over-year rise since at least the end of the Cold War in 2024, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute data showed this week, with Europe as the main contributor. Analysts estimate NATO members could add €700 billion ($798 billion) to €2 trillion in extra military spending by 2030.


Of course, much of the windfall will flow to prime U.S. contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics. But Brussels wants at least 50% of European military procurement to go to domestic firms. Achieving that requires major industrial reform—something investors are eager to capitalize on as the U.S. growth story loses its shine.

Because European countries slashed military budgets a lot more than the U.S. after the Cold War, their domestic defense suppliers became niche, low-volume producers with high unit costs. Airbus’s military arm was the highest-grossing one in 2024 with €12 billion in revenue—barring BAE Systems, which gets half its sales from the U.S. By contrast, Lockheed grossed $71 billion.

This has created a negative feedback loop, with NATO members increasingly channeling off-the-shelf purchases toward American contractors, which remain capable of large-scale production. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, only 22% of the EU’s procurement boost remained in Europe, according to the European Commission.

The clear, first step to fix this is producing more of what Europe already makes: ammunition. After the EU failed to deliver one million artillery shells to Ukraine by March 2023—it took until November—officials in the bloc allocated €500 million to scale output. A quarter went to Rheinmetall, which targets output of 1.1 million 155mm shells a year by 2027, and tripling annual revenue to €30 billion by 2030.

Rheinmetall wants to evolve into an American-style, all-purpose contractor. It recently acquired U.S. vehicle maker Loc Performance, ammo recovery firm Stascheit, and software developer blackned, and bid for Thyssenkrupp’s warship arm, which was rejected in favor of a spinoff.

However, investor enthusiasm has pushed its forward price-earnings ratio to 43, from 17 six months ago. Such extreme valuations argue for diversification, but it is hard to spot other clear winners in an industrial base wastefully fragmented across national lines.

Germany is a leading manufacturer of tanks but, where the U.S. fields the Abrams main battle tank, the Bradley infantry vehicle and the Stryker personnel carrier, Europe has several competing models for each tank class. Ditto for frigates, submarines and planes.

In jet fighters, the Eurofighter Typhoon, backed by Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K., competes with France’s Rafale and Sweden’s Gripen. But the most popular choice among European NATO members is the F-35, which boasts stealth capabilities and triple the production rate. This locks countries into U.S. systems for two decades. Next-generation fighter development is split too, between a Dassault-Airbus program and a BAE Systems-Leonardo-Mitsubishi team.


Ideally, these firms would merge into two giants, each bidding for a unified contract, with only one aircraft ultimately developed, just as Boeing and Lockheed did with the U.S. Air Force’s F-47 project.

In practice, top-tier mergers remain unlikely. National governments retain stakes in most defense firms and are reluctant to cede control.

A more realistic model is missile maker MBDA. Jointly owned by Airbus, BAE and Leonardo, it functions as one company while retaining national subsidiaries. This allowed simplification: The Aster missile family—Europe’s closest equivalent to the U.S. PAC-3 MSE, used in the Patriot systems that have proven vital in Ukraine—has replaced legacy systems such as the Crotale, Masurca, Spada, Aspide and Sea Dart. MBDA plans to double production this year from 2023.

Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters are backed by Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. - JOHN THYS/AFP/Getty Images

This model could extend to other sectors. Rheinmetall is developing the Panther KF51 tank, aimed at replacing the Leopard 2, and has now joined forces with Leonardo to build a variant for Italy. Naval capabilities could be consolidated across BAE, France’s Naval Group, Germany’s Thyssenkrupp, Italy’s Fincantieri and the Netherlands’s Damen.


Investors could spread bets across listed players, hoping to reap the benefits of their networks of specialized subsidiaries.

Still, the MBDA blueprint remains vulnerable to national divergence. MBDA Germany and France, for example, make competing land-attack cruise missiles: The Taurus KEPD 350, now restarting production after a five-year pause, and the SCALP EG. This reflects premerger legacies, but highlights the challenge of scaling with stale, legacy lines. University of Oslo’s Fabian Hoffmann estimates combined annual capacity is just 100 units, which is far below Lockheed’s 700 JASSM-ERs.

Meanwhile, Europe lacks a high-altitude missile defense like the U.S. THAAD or Israel’s Arrow 3, which can take 20 years to build. It also depends on the U.S. for software and satellite intelligence.

Lockheed Martin jet fighters being manufactured in West Fort Worth. - Fort Worth Star-Telegram/Getty Images

“It is best to first fix the procurement system, then have these companies compete with each other and then see which winners are emerging and drive consolidation. It is what happened with Rheinmetall,” said Hoffmann.

Indeed, the EU seeks to replicate the Pentagon’s power as a centralized buyer. It will make €150 billion in loans available for joint defense procurement and has set up a target for 40% of purchases to be collaborative by 2030. That may not be enough.

With many countries still reluctant to spend even under the auspices of Brussels, though, there will still be a lot of capital stepping in to finance smaller defense deals, usually involving assets owned by unlisted companies.

Private-equity firms such as London-based Tikehau Capital and Paris-based Weinberg Capital Partners are now focusing on security-related small and medium companies, and larger players such as CVC Capital Partners are perfectly positioned to do even more.

Then there is venture capital, which should help address some of the “capability gaps” that EU officials have identified, including drones, artificial intelligence and cyberwarfare. The models are the many Silicon Valley upstarts currently vying for Pentagon contracts, such as Anduril Industries, Palantir and Shield AI.

According to a recent report by NATO Innovation Fund, a €1 billion vehicle launched by NATO in 2023 to provide early support to strategic military technology, European VC funding in this area was at a record high last year. The success of Ukrainian producers of small drones, sprouted out of necessity, have also pointed the way.

There is another straightforward way to play the trend: The top European investment banks, such as BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank, are set to receive a fee windfall in the form of advisory services for mergers and restructurings, as well as equity and debt issuance to fund expansions.

The European military-industrial complex won’t rival the U.S.’s anytime soon, but there is money to be made as it wakes up from a long slumber.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

'No Legal Basis,' Says Harvard After Trump Declares Tax-Exempt Status Will Be Taken Away

"Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission," said a spokesperson for the Ivy League school.

Eloise Goldsmith
May 02, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Harvard University pushed back forcefully Friday after President Donald Trump declared in a social media post that "we are going to be taking away Harvard Tax Exempt Status," adding that is "what they deserve."

Trump's comment came just hours after Democratic senators sent a letter demanding a probe into whether the administration is acting illegally by trying to compel the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to yank the university's tax exemption.

Trump's post did not specify whether the IRS, the entity that has the power to remove an organization's tax-exempt status, is opting to remove Harvard's designation. Multiple outlets noted they got no immediate response from the IRS when they asked the agency for comment.

"There is no legal basis to rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status," a university spokesperson said in a statement, according toPolitico. "Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission."

It is illegal for the president, vice president, or other top officials to request, indirectly or directly, that the IRS audit a particular taxpayer.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and multiple other Democratic senators on Friday asked the Acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to probe whether the IRS has received illegal pressure from the administration when it comes to Harvard, and to provide information about whether the agency is looking into other entities at the direction of the president or other top officials.

"It is both illegal and unconstitutional for the IRS to take direction from the president to target schools, hospitals, churches, or any other tax-exempt entities as retribution for using their free speech rights," the senators wrote in a letter dated Friday to the Acting TIGTA Heather Hill.

"It is further unconscionable that the IRS would become a weapon of the Trump administration to extort its perceived enemies, but the actions of the president and his operatives have now made this fear a reality. We request that you review whether the president or his allies have taken any step to direct or pressure the IRS to take politically-motivated actions regarding the tax-exempt status of the president's political targets," they continued.

Loss of tax-exempt status, something that would only typically occur after an audit process that allows the university opportunity to defend itself and appeal, would be extremely significant for the university. Tax-exempt status means the school does not pay federal income tax on charitable contributions to the school and other income. It also means that donations to the school are tax-exempt for those who make them.

Trump mused publicly on April 16 that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status, after the university's president said the institution would not comply with a list of policy demands from the president, that included, according to the Harvard Crimson, derecognizing pro-Palestine student groups and auditing academic programs for viewpoint diversity. The pushback from Harvard prompted the administration to freeze over $2 billion in federal funding for the school.

That same week, it was reported that the IRS was making plans to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.

In response to Trump's bullying tactics, Harvard sued the administration, calling the freeze on funding unlawful and asking the court to restore it.

The tangling between Harvard and the Trump administration is part of a broader wave of scrutiny by the White House on higher education.

Trump says he’s ‘taking away’ Harvard’s tax-exempt status. That would be an unpopular move, according to a new poll

The Yahoo News/YouGov survey finds that more Americans disapprove (49%) than approve (35%) of the president's pressure campaign against the elite university.

Andrew Romano
·Reporter
Updated Fri, May 2, 2025 


"Veritas" on a wall at Harvard University. (David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)


President Trump said Friday that he would be "taking away" Harvard University's tax-exempt status, a move that would upend the school's finances and escalate his pressure campaign against some of America's most elite universities.

"It’s what they deserve!" Trump wrote on social media.

But in the ongoing battle between Trump and Harvard, significantly more Americans side with Harvard, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.

The survey of 1,597 U.S. adults was conducted from April 25 to 28, just days after Harvard sued the Trump administration in federal court. On April 11, the administration sent Harvard a letter saying it would lose billions of dollars in government funding unless it changed its hiring practices, admissions criteria and classroom priorities to make the campus “viewpoint diverse.” When Harvard refused, the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to the university and threatened its tax-exempt status.


Federal law prohibits the president from using the Internal Revenue Service as a political tool, and if IRS employees receive an order from the White House to conduct a tax investigation, they're required to report it to an inspector general. The first time Trump said he would strip Harvard of its status, White House officials insisted the IRS would act independently and come to its own conclusion.

“There is no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status,” a Harvard spokesperson said Friday. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation.”

Like other nonprofit educational institutions, Harvard is exempt from paying most federal taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Donors can also write off gifts to the school on their personal tax returns. Forcing Harvard's to pay taxes would drain it of funds currently used for education, research and aid; it could also cause donations to dry up.

Is Trump's pressure campaign popular?

Citing concerns about Gaza War protests and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, Trump has moved to impose his ideological preferences on other prestigious universities as well, using government money as leverage. But Harvard was the first to forcefully push back.


The public largely supports the school’s decision. According to the new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, a plurality of Americans (48%) approve of Harvard rejecting Trump’s demands; just 31% disapprove. (The rest — 21% — are not sure).

Likewise, 49% of Americans disapprove of the Trump administration’s response (i.e., freezing Harvard’s research grants and threatening its tax-exempt status); only 35% approve.

Finally, far more Americans agree with an anonymous statement summarizing Harvard’s side of the argument than with an anonymous statement summarizing Trump’s:

49% agree that “no government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue" (Harvard President Alan Garber).


35% agree that "the gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard is coming to an end” because “taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege" (White House spokesperson Harrison Fields).

The politics of Trump vs. Harvard

Since World War II, the U.S. government has sought to innovate and compete globally by funding scientific research at private universities — an arrangement that Trump and other Republicans have called into question by accusing these schools of discriminating against white and Jewish students, allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports and harboring liberal, even anti-American, biases.


Some concessions have already been made. In March, Columbia University agreed to overhaul its protest policies, security practices and Middle Eastern studies department in an effort to claw back $400 million in federal funds. On Monday, Harvard changed the name of its Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging to “Community and Campus Life”; the following day, it released twin reports detailing how the war in Gaza had inflamed campus antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Yet while most Americans agree with Trump and his allies that the politics of U.S. universities are "mostly liberal" (42%) rather than "mostly conservative" (6%) — or "neither liberal nor conservative" (25%) — they still approve of the federal government funding scientific research at such universities by a wide margin, 57% to 17%. Most Americans also see U.S. universities favorably (57%) rather than unfavorably (29%) — and the same goes for Harvard itself (52% favorable to 29% unfavorable).

Trump’s favorable rating, in comparison, is just 43%; his unfavorable rating is 10 percentage points higher (53%).

Democratic support for Harvard’s position is more uniform than Republican opposition: A full 73% of Democrats approve of Harvard's refusal to comply with Trump’s demands, while just 51% of Republicans disapprove.

GOP approval for the administration’s response — i.e., freezing billions in federal grants — is higher, at 73%, but that support is concentrated among Republicans who say their most-watched cable network is Fox News (82%). There is less support for Trump’s response among Republicans who don’t watch any cable news (69%) or prefer CNN, MSNBC or some other network (59%).


__________________

The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,597 U.S. adults interviewed online from April 25 to 28, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.9%.

US weather forecasting is more crippled than previously known as hurricane season nears

Andrew Freedman, CNN
Fri, May 2, 2025 


Hurricane Harvey is seen over Texas on August 26, 2017.

- Randy Bresnik/NASA/AP

The National Weather Service is in worse shape than previously known, according to interviews with current and former meteorologists, due to a combination of layoffs, early retirements and preexisting vacancies.

The nation’s forecasting agency is in tatters as what could be a destructive hurricane season nears. Several current and former agency meteorologists told CNN they are concerned forecasts and life-saving warnings are not going to be issued in time.

Responsible for protecting life and property from severe weather impacts, the National Weather Service is headed into hurricane season with 30 of its 122 weather forecast offices lacking their most experienced official, known as the meteorologist-in-charge.

These include offices that cover major population centers such as New York City, Cleveland, Houston and Tampa.

There is not a single manager in place at the hurricane-prone Houston-Galveston forecast office, according to a NOAA staff member who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.

That office was the main source of information during Hurricane Harvey, which killed at least 68 people, dumped a record 60.58 inches of rain and flooded large parts of the Houston metro area in 2017.

Already, multiple offices have reduced or eliminated daily weather balloon launches and more are likely to follow suit following a wave of early retirements taking place this week, the NOAA employee said. The balloons provide critical data for computer models that forecasters use to predict the weather, raising the likelihood that projections will be more unreliable.

One NWS forecast office, in Goodland, Kansas, is no longer operating 24/7, with about a dozen more likely to shift to non-24-hour operations if action isn’t taken this month. These offices include several in the Plains states and stretch into the Pacific Northwest.

Such a change is virtually unheard of in the absence of an extreme weather event, such as a hurricane or tornado, that either threatens the lives of the forecasters themselves or knocks them offline.

There are also more than 90 vacancies among the staff responsible for repairing NWS Doppler radars and automated surface weather observation stations, the NOAA staff member said, greatly raising the likelihood of prolonged equipment outages that could affect air travel. Weather stations provide pilots and controllers with crucial data on wind direction and speed at airports to determine how to take off and land safely, among other parameters.

Radar outages during tornado and hurricane seasons could cause forecasters to miss hazardous conditions till after they strike.

The NWS has lost more than 550 people all told, since the start of Trump’s second term, according to tallies kept by sources inside and outside of the agency. That’s about the same number as the agency lost in the 15 years between 2010 and 2025, according to Tom Fahy of Capitol Meteorologics.
‘The critical linchpin’

Of the hundreds of vacancies, the 30 open meteorologist-in-charge roles are particularly worrying, current and former NWS meteorologists told CNN.

Meteorologists-in-charge serve as the captain of a team of forecasters and other specialized staff members. Their decades of experience often comes into play during high-impact weather situations, an active-duty NWS meteorologist told CNN. They also requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.

“They’re usually the glue that holds it together,” the NOAA staff member said of these chief meteorologists.

These leaders work forecast shifts when needed, interpret guidance coming from NWS headquarters, and help push their forecasters to adopt new technology, forecast and warning techniques, said a weather service employee who also requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

“The MICs are the critical linchpin in the operation of our weather forecast offices,” said former NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad, using the acronym for these managers. “They ensure the forecasters have all they need to be most effective, and they are the direct link to NWS HQ for safe and timely communications during weather events,” Spinrad, who led NOAA during the Biden administration, told CNN.

“Not having a permanent MIC in place is like having a substitute pilot on the airplane.”

Importantly, these most experienced members of a local forecast office are well known to local media as well as the emergency management community. When there is no one in that role, those external relationships can suffer.

Gary Szatkowski, who was the meteorologist-in-charge of the NWS Mt. Holly, N.J. office when Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012, said briefing the media and emergency managers is a crucial function of the role. He said he spent 10 days straight at the office in the runup to and aftermath of that storm due to the forecast and briefing needs associated with the region, which included the cities of Philadelphia and Atlantic City.

With such positions missing for long periods, he worries those emergency management connections will fray.

“It’s like driving down the road with bald tires. You might get 1,000 miles. You might get 10 miles. To some extent, you don’t know. You’re just engaging in a risky behavior.”

With FEMA limping into hurricane season with staff vacancies of their own, the state and local emergency management interactions that meteorologists in charge typically have may be even more important during the coming months.

“They too are meteorologists and often fill shifts when folks are sick or on vacation or there are vacancies,” the NWS employee said, and their absence makes it harder to fill those shifts and keep the lights on.

Further cuts to NOAA are in the works, though the NWS may not suffer the brunt of that next round.

Hurricane season begins on June 1.

This has been the deadliest flu season for US children in 15 years, CDC reports

216 children have died in the 2024-25 season, the most since the swine flu pandemic.

Mike Bebernes

Reporter
Fri, May 2, 2025 

Photo: Getty Images

The United States is currently experiencing the deadliest flu season for children in the last 15 years, according to a report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Friday.

A total of 216 children have died of the flu during the 2024-25 season, the highest number since the swine flu pandemic in 2009-10. The previous high was set a year ago, when there were 207 childhood flu deaths. This latest flu season saw the highest number of childhood deaths in a nonpandemic season on record since the agency began cataloging flu deaths by age two decades ago. There have also been more than 48,000 children hospitalized with the flu so far this season.

The peak of flu season is, thankfully, over, but the final death toll for this season is likely to continue to grow in the coming months. The final pediatric death of the 2023-24 season wasn’t recorded until last fall.

One factor likely contributing to the rise in flu-related deaths is the plummeting vaccination rate for seasonal flu among children. Rates steadily climbed in the years following swine flu, which killed 288 children, but began to drop quickly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Five years ago, 64% of kids had gotten their seasonal flu shot, compared to just 49% today.

Flu shots don’t necessarily prevent someone from contracting the virus and the variance in flu strains can mean their effectiveness fluctuates from year to year. But vaccines have been shown to be highly effective at fending off severe infections and deaths. The CDC estimates that vaccines prevented nearly 10 million cases of the flu, 120,000 hospitalizations and 7,900 deaths during the 2023-24 flu season.

That season was classified as “moderate” by government health officials. The one we’re currently experiencing has been categorized as “high severity.” So far there have been more than 610,000 flu-related hospitalizations and 26,000 deaths this season, nearly as many deaths as there were in the entirety of the 2023-24 season.

The worst of the 2024-25 flu season may be over, but experts see reason to be concerned about what’s coming in the future as well. It’s unclear whether childhood vaccination rates will continue to fall. The process for deciding how next season’s flu shots should be formulated was also disrupted.

Typically, the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory board holds a meeting with independent experts from around the world to choose the composition of that year’s vaccine. That meeting was abruptly cancelled this year. The FDA did release its recommended vaccine formulation on schedule in March, though it did so without the input of the outside experts. While there were some concerns that the meeting’s cancellation might delay production of this year’s vaccine, the agency said it “does not anticipate any impact on timing or availability of vaccines for the American public.”

Russia's Medvedev says Ukraine minerals deal means Trump has forced Kyiv to pay for US aid

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER

Reuters
Thu, May 1, 2025 


FILE PHOTO: Russia's Security Council deputy head Medvedev meets military personnel in Ulyanovsk region


MOSCOW (Reuters) - Senior Russian security official Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday that the signing of a minerals deal between Ukraine and the United States meant U.S. President Donald Trump had forced Kyiv to pay for future U.S. military aid.

The deal, signed in Washington on Wednesday, will give the United States preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals and fund investment in Ukraine's reconstruction.

The Kyiv Post, citing diplomatic sources, said the Trump administration had also told Congress on Wednesday of its intention to green-light the export of defence-related products to Ukraine through direct commercial sales of $50 million or more, the first step of its kind since Trump's White House return.


Advertisement


Reuters could not immediately confirm that.

"Trump has broken the Kyiv regime to the point where they will have to pay for U.S. aid with mineral resources," Medvedev, a former Russian president who is now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, wrote on Telegram.

"Now they (Ukrainians) will have to pay for military supplies with the national wealth of a disappearing country," he said.

Medvedev, who was president from 2008-2012, once projected the image of a liberal pro-Western moderniser, but has emerged as one of the most outspoken anti-Western hawks since the start of Russia's war in Ukraine in 2022.


Advertisement


The minerals agreement was reached at a time when the U.S. says it is growing increasingly frustrated by the failure of Moscow and Kyiv to come to the table for peace talks.

Moscow says it is ready for direct talks with Ukraine and is open to a long-lasting peace settlement, but that the issues at stake are so complex that the process cannot be rushed.

Kyiv says it advocates an immediate unconditional ceasefire for at least 30 days. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he agrees in principle, but that there are many issues that need to be clarified before that can happen.

Putin has announced a three-day ceasefire for May 8-10, when Russia will hold celebrations to mark the 80th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two.

The Kremlin has said that Russia has enormous mineral wealth itself and has held out the prospect of potential cooperation deals with the U.S. in the Arctic and elsewhere. It has yet to comment on the Ukrainian minerals deal.

Sergei Markov, a former Kremlin adviser, said he thought the deal between Washington and Kyiv would make it harder for Russia to achieve its goals in Ukraine through peace talks because Trump had set up a mechanism to "justify" new spending on the war.

"The U.S. is beginning to see itself as a sort of co-owner of Ukraine. Therefore, it will take a position that it considers pro-Ukrainian," Markov forecast.

(Reporting by Reuters; Writing by Andrew Osborn; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Mathematician solves algebra’s oldest problem

Andrew Paul
Thu, May 1, 2025 



Polynomials were first conceived by the Babylonians around 1800 BCE.

Most people’s experiences with polynomial equations don’t extend much further than high school algebra and the quadratic formula. Still, these numeric puzzles remain a foundational component of everything from calculating planetary orbits to computer programming. Although solving lower order polynomials—where the x in an equation is raised up to the fourth power—is often a simple task, things get complicated once you start seeing powers of five or greater. For centuries, mathematicians accepted this as simply an inherent challenge to their work, but not Norman Wildberger. According to his new approach detailed in The American Mathematical Monthly, there’s a much more elegant approach to high order polynomials—all you need to do is get rid of pesky notions like irrational numbers.

Babylonians first conceived of two-degree polynomials around 1800 BCE, but it took until the 16th century for mathematicians to evolve the concept to incorporate three- and four-degree variables using root numbers, also known as radicals. Polynomials remained there for another two centuries, with larger examples stumping experts until in 1832. That year, French mathematician Évariste Galois finally illustrated why this was such a problem—the underlying mathematical symmetry in the established methods for lower-order polynomials simply became too complicated for degree five or higher. For Galois, this meant there just wasn’t a general formula available for them.

Norman Wildberger’s mathematical work rejects concepts like irrational numbers.

Mathematicians have since developed approximate solutions, but they require integrating concepts like irrational numbers into the classical formula.

To calculate such an irrational number, “you would need an infinite amount of work and a hard drive larger than the universe,” explained Wildberger, a mathematician at the University of New South Wales Sydney in Australia.

This infinite number of possibilities is the fundamental issue, according to Wildberger. The solution? Toss out the entire concept.

“[I don’t] believe in irrational numbers,” he said.

Instead, his approach relies on mathematical functions like adding, multiplying, and squaring. Wildberger recently approached this challenge by turning to specific polynomial variants called “power series,” which possess infinite terms within the powers of x. To test it out, he and computer scientist Dean Rubine used “a famous cubic equation used by Wallis in the 17th century to demonstrate Newton’s method.”

You don’t need to try wrapping your head around all that, however. Just trust Wildberger when he said the solution “worked beautifully.”

The same goes for Catalan numbers, a famous sequence of numbers that describes the number of ways to dissect any given polygon. These also appear in the natural world in areas like biology, where they are employed to analyze possible folding patterns of RNA molecules.

“The Catalan numbers are understood to be intimately connected with the quadratic equation,” explained Wildberger. “Our innovation lies in the idea that if we want to solve higher equations, we should look for higher analogues of the Catalan numbers.”

Outside of headspinning concepts on paper, Wildberger believes the new approach to higher power polynomials could soon result in computer programs capable of solving equations without the need for radicals. It may also help improve algorithms across a variety of fields.

“This is a dramatic revision of a basic chapter in algebra,” argued Wildberger.

Luckily, none of this will be your next pop quiz.

The first driverless semis have started running regular longhaul routes

Alexandra Skores, CNN
Thu, May 1, 2025 



Interior of one of Aurora's driverless trucks. - Courtesy Aurora


Driverless trucks are officially running their first regular long-haul routes, making roundtrips between Dallas and Houston.

On Thursday, autonomous trucking firm Aurora announced it launched commercial service in Texas under its first customers, Uber Freight and Hirschbach Motor Lines, which delivers time- and temperature-sensitive freight. Both companies conducted test runs with Aurora, including safety drivers to monitor the self-driving technology dubbed “Aurora Driver.” Aurora’s new commercial service will no longer have safety drivers.

“We founded Aurora to deliver the benefits of self-driving technology safely, quickly, and broadly, said Chris Urmson, CEO and co-founder of Aurora, in a release on Thursday. “Now, we are the first company to successfully and safely operate a commercial driverless trucking service on public roads.”



The trucks are equipped with computers and sensors that can see the length of over four football fields. In four years of practice hauls the trucks’ technology has delivered over 10,000 customer loads. As of Thursday, the company’s self-driving tech has completed over 1,200 miles without a human in the truck.

Aurora is starting with a single self-driving truck and plans to add more by the end of 2025.

One of Aurora's trucks on the road. - Courtesy Aurora

Self-driving technology continued to garner attention after over a decade of hype, especially from auto companies like Tesla, GM and others that have poured billions into the tech. Companies in the market of autonomous trucking or driving, tend to use states like Texas and California as their testing grounds for the technology.

California-based Gatik does short-haul deliveries for Fortune 500 retailers like Walmart. Another California tech firm, Kodiak Robotics, delivers freight daily for customers across the South but with safety drivers. Waymo, a subsidiary of Google parent company Alphabet, had an autonomous trucking arm but dismantled it in 2023 to focus on its self-driving ride-hailing services.



However, consumers and transportation officials have raised alarms on the safety record of autonomous vehicles. Aurora released its own safety report this year detailing how its technology works.

Unions that represent truck drivers are usually opposed to the driverless technology because of the threat of job loss and concerns over safety.

 

Turbulence in the Global Economy

Vijay Prashad | 25 Apr 2025

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The IMF has predicted “uncertainty” in the global economy, especially in the wake of Trump’s tariff war, yet it seems to ignore the pathways towards stability and growth seen in the East.

IMF briefing. Photo: IMF News

On April 22, 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its annual World Economic Outlook report, which has a quiet but decisive subtitle: A Critical Juncture and Policy Shifts. The report, once more a hefty piece of work by the IMF economists and their associates, rushes to make sense of the tariffs first threatened by US President Donald Trump and then delayed, and then, as if the flurry was not sufficient, retained and increased against China. The IMF attempts to make the case that through 2024, “global growth was stable” and that the current downgrade to global growth is largely a factor of the Trump tariff “uncertainty” and “unpredictability”.

The IMF releases this report during the annual week of meetings of the Fund and the World Bank. At the start of the meetings, IMF Director Kristalina Georgieva reflected on the situation in the global economy and claimed that the turbulence is largely due to “an erosion of trust”. No longer, she said, do countries trust each other as they once did, nor do they trust the international system. Apart from the reversal of the tariffs, the IMF says that what needs to be built once more is trust in international economic affairs.

Whispers in the corners of the IMF and World Bank meetings are all about the irrationality of the Trump administration, and – in particular – the unpredictability of Trump’s own statements. With the head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) beside him, Trump told a press conference in the White House that Canada is not a real country but would be an excellent state within the United States. That sort of comment creates fodder for the hushed giggles at the edges of this meeting, when otherwise serious men and women in business suits maintain a rictus look of concern for high affairs of state.

Errors in judgment

One of the significant errors in the assessment by the IMF is that everything in the Western economies had begun to look stable last year. While it is true that the threat of the tariffs and then the anti-China tariffs themselves created “a major negative shock to growth”, it is not true that growth rates had been expected to reach new heights this year.

Growth in the US has been significantly below its historic trend since the 2007-08 subprime mortgage crisis-induced financial crisis – indeed, US growth since then has been cumulatively lower than in the Great Depression. In the 17 years after the Great Crash of 1929, US annual GDP growth averaged 3.7%, whereas in the 17 years since the International Financial Crisis, US annual growth averaged only 2.0%.

In October 2024, the IMF projected that the United States would grow at 2.2%, and since reduced its forecast to 1.8%. Meanwhile, in October last year, it suggested a rate of 4.5% for China and 6.5% for India, far higher than for either the US projected rate or the advanced economy projections (1.8%). The Trump tariffs certainly compounded the problems for the US, but they are not the cause of the problem. Sluggish growth has been the situation for almost two decades.

On that sluggishness, the IMF’s new World Economic Outlook is remarkably bland. It suggests that the “core macroeconomic policy challenge” of the United States is its federal government debt. This debt, which is 36.2 trillion, is 124% of GDP. Ten global north countries are in the twenty countries with the highest debt-to-GDP ratios: Japan (266%), Greece (193%), Italy (151%), United States (124%), Portugal (122%), Spain (117%), France (112%), Belgium (111%), Canada (109%), and the United Kingdom (105%). Cutting the deficit might make good macroeconomic sense, but it does not by itself propose a way back to growth for the United States. Lower social welfare spending will further deplete private consumption. And Trump’s dream of revitalizing US manufacturing is not going to work merely through a reduced federal government deficit without a massive, massive release of resources for industrialization. Without an attack on living standards, this could only come from measures such as a reduction in excessive US military expenditure or reform of the country’s grotesquely inefficient private health system. These are policies Trump will not adopt.

In fact, the IMF gives notoriously poor advice to the Chinese government. It suggests that China should emulate the United States rather than the other way around. China, the IMF says, should “boost chronically low private consumption” and “dial back industrial policies and pervasive state involvement in industry”. In other words, abandon its long-term growth profile and become like the slow-growing United States!

In November 2024, the IMF released an interesting paper by its economists (Dirk Muir, Natalija Novta, and Anne Oeking) called “China’s Path to Sustainable and Balanced Growth”. The paper and the World Economic Outlook together make the case that China’s strong economic performance comes from its COVID stimulus, its high exports, a high domestic savings rate to finance public infrastructure, its banking system that directs liquidity to small and medium-sized enterprises to generate productive activity rather than property speculation, and an emphasis on high-quality productive forces. This is a fairly good summary of the structure of Chinese growth over the last period. But it is totally counter to the suggestions that the IMF then gives to China: which is to liquidate everything that allowed it to stave off the long term sluggishness of the advanced industrial countries (including to pressure the renminbi to appreciate, as the US would like so that its trade imbalance can be rectified by a foreign exchange shift rather than by greater productivity in the US itself).

The IMF is right. There is great uncertainty ahead. But there is also certainty in its own reports and in its charts. High domestic savings and better sovereignty of resources (including the financial system), alongside canalization of these finances to the productive sector (for infrastructure and industrialization), produce more stability in the long run than an excessive reliance on private financial markets and the whims of the billionaire class. But the IMF does not close its new report with that news. It prefers to look out of the window and see the storms in the Western skies rather than the calm in the East.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are On Cuba: Reflections on 70 Years of Revolution and Struggle (with Noam Chomsky), Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism, and (also with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of US Power.

This article was produced by Globetrotter. 

Courtesy: peoples Dispatch

 

Systemic Agrarian Crisis & Changing Contours of Farm Workers

Vikram Singh | 26 Apr 2025

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The increasing number of agricultural workers and decreasing agricultural work has created new kinds of crises in rural India.

Representational Image. Image Courtesy: Flickr

Manik Ghonshetwad, an agricultural worker from Ambulga village in Mukhed taluka of Nanded district, Maharashtra, works seasonally on farmlands during specific months of the year.  He is employed in June and July for cultivation of soybean or cotton, in August and September for weeding (either manually or with herbicides), and in December and January for harvesting. However, this work is not continuous; he is engaged only for a few days in each of these months.

The limited availability of working days in agriculture in his village and neighbouring areas is insufficient to sustain his family’s basic needs. For the rest of the year, he takes up various forms of daily wage labour, as a headload worker, potter, and construction labourer --essentially any job available.

Even during the cultivation and harvesting seasons, Ghonshetwad supplements his income by taking up non-farm manual work whenever possible. He is also a regular worker under MGNREGA (the 100-day rural job guarantee scheme), though his employment depends on the discretion of government and panchayat officials. Additionally, his family's livestock contributes to their income.

Maroti Shivram Mishkire, from the same village, undertakes similar work but also works as a driver to supplement his earnings. Furthermore, he rears pigs, which provide an additional source of income for his household.

The two examples of multi-occupational profiles of agricultural workers, as encountered during a field survey in this village, illustrate the changing nature of work and the rural workforce in India. These highlight how agricultural workers confront shrinking employment opportunities in agriculture. Multiple factors contribute to this shift, including the indiscriminate use of labour-displacing technology and the growing number of workers reliant on agriculture.

We have a situation of an ever-increasing reserve army of workers, who have no gainful employment in the countryside or assured employment in the urban centres to which they migrate. The deep agrarian crisis in India remains the fundamental reason for this situation.

Read Also: The Modi Years: Rural Wages Saw Further Squeeze

Agriculture is one of the largest sectors providing work to the rural population in India. The share of the agricultural sector in employment has been steadily increasing, rising from 44.1% in 2017-18 to 46.1% in 2023-24. As per 2011 Census, India’s total workforce was 48.17 crore. Of this 72% is from a rural background and more than half i.e. 54.6% or 26.3 crore workers are engaged in agriculture.

In our country, the agricultural workforce primarily consists of cultivators and agricultural labourers. A fundamental distinction between these groups, as delineated by the Census of 2011, lies in land ownership arrangements, specifically characterised by the presence or absence of the ‘ownership rights’, ‘right of lease’ or ‘contract on land’. While a cultivator owns land or has a lease or a contract to operate on it, an agricultural labourer does not, as he or she works on land owned by others in return for wages paid in cash or kind.

Additionally, an important section of poor farmers with small, uneconomical holdings are also forced to labour out on others’ farms or take up other menial jobs. Clearly, there is a blurring of the line as to who is a farmer, a tenant farmer or an agricultural worker.

Agricultural labourers constitute an important segment of the rural proletariat engaged in agricultural production. They are the most downtrodden and marginalised class in rural India. Mostly, they are deprived of all resources and most of them are landless, lack access to means of production and rely solely on their labour for sustenance.

Their socio-economic status renders them vulnerable to exploitation, as they are compelled to accept wages dictated by the landlords, mostly below the minimum wages. Moreover, many lack houses, further exacerbating their precarious conditions.

They are not only economically exploited but also endure social marginalisation, confronting pervasive discrimination and violence. Women agricultural workers face gender deprivation, social oppression and receive far lower wages than men for the same kind of work.

Systematic oppression obstructs the inclusion of the agricultural workers in broader development, entrenching cycles of poverty and inequity. Historically marginalised by illiteracy, their children still face poor education, perpetuating limited awareness and hindering progress. Lack of organisation and unionisation hinder collective bargaining, political mobilisation and resultant lack of exposure to political struggles as well as politicisation.

Agricultural workers were a major part of bonded labour in India. Bonded labour represents the most extreme form of social and economic oppression. The bondage arises from indebtedness and debt burden and is passed from one generation to another. It was known by different names in different parts of the country, such as Hali in Gujarat, Kamia in Bihar, Harwaha in Madhya Pradesh, Gothi in Andhra Pradesh, Jeetha in Karnataka and so on.

Many migrant labourers in the Green Revolution areas were forced to submit themselves due to their helpless situation, to various restrictions imposed by the land owners, virtually reducing them to bonded labourers. In the feudal rural structure, the landless families still depend on landlords and rich farmers for their livelihood and are forced to work on their dictates. Agricultural workers may be legally freed from bonded labour, but in reality, a large number are bound by contracts at meagre wages to escape the clutches of unemployment.

After the country’s Independence, the number of agricultural workers has grown rapidly, especially after the implementation of neoliberal economic policies over the past three decades. The overall number of agricultural workforce in the four decades from 1960 to 2001 consisted of more cultivators than labourers.

However, in Census 2011, for the first time in Indian history, this trend was turned around. The Census revealed that the share of cultivators was less than half (about 45%) and that of agricultural labourers was close to 55% in the total agricultural workforce. In real terms, the total number of cultivators, both main and marginal, is 11,86,69,264, whereas agricultural workers are 14,43,29,833. Back in 1961, there were about 33 labourers for every 100 cultivators; in 2011, there were now about 121 labourers for every 100 cultivators.

There are various reasons for the increase in number of farm workers, but the important reason is the pauperisation of farmers, especially after the implementation of neo-liberal economic policies. With the implementation of these policies, State support for agriculture has reduced, resulting in an exorbitant increase in input costs and no guarantee of minimum support price (MSP) or procurement for agricultural produce.

Hence the whole agriculture production process has become more uncertain. Earlier, weather was the only uncertainty for farmers. They were afraid of drought and rain, but now market uncertainties are harsher than those of nature. When profit is the only guiding force, the lives of agricultural workers hardly stand anywhere.

This persistent agrarian crisis is displacing small and marginal farmers and forcing them to leave agriculture, as it fails to support the livelihood of their families. Studies based on NSSO (National Sample Survey Office) data reveal that lakhs of small and marginal farmers are forced to sell their land, leave cultivation and join the ranks of manual workers.

Not only farmers, small artisans, too, lost their work and are forced to work as agricultural labourers or take up menial work.

The fact that the number of agricultural workers is now more than the cultivators means that dependence on wage labour is more than that on land. Along with the increased number of agricultural workers, employment opportunities in agriculture are not growing. At the same time, the indiscriminate use of labour displacing technology has further reduced the working days on farms. The overall unemployment in rural India has increased.

The increasing number of agricultural workers and decreasing agricultural work has created new kinds of crises in rural India. Unremunerative agriculture, characterised by low returns from farming activities, remains the primary factor compelling agricultural workers and small farmers to migrate in search of improved livelihoods.

Read Also: ‘Modi’s Guarantee’: The Grim Reality of Rural & Agri Workers

The steep decline and crisis in the agriculture sector has caused the youth to migrate for their livelihood. Under these conditions, growing numbers of workers are forced to search employment in non-agricultural sectors. The economic crises and the burgeoning unemployment in cities are creating an increasingly complex situation.

This situation is forcing manual workers in rural India to various kinds of work for survival.  Most agricultural workers are not restricted to specific fields throughout the year. Almost all rural manual workers participate, to different degrees, in agricultural work. They are doing multiple tasks at different times, ranging from MGNREGA work to brick kiln work and from agricultural labour to industrial work in the nearby small towns.

Hired workers in agriculture and in non-agricultural tasks no longer constitute two distinct sections of rural workers. Wage-workers in agriculture work in a wide range of non-farm tasks as well, including as migrant workers in urban areas. These workers nevertheless retain a partial agricultural and rural character, and are, in important respects, distinct from the urban proletariat. It means that there is a growth of rural workers in big numbers who are working in different sectors, but they are still linked to agriculture.

The majority of agricultural and rural workers have been earning wages below the recommended minimum levels. Wages for major agricultural and non-agricultural occupations declined at an annual rate of 3% between 2013-14 and 2018-19.

Amid low incomes and high unemployment rates, the lives of agricultural workers greatly depend on welfare schemes and public sector institutions of the social welfare state. However, the very concept of such a welfare state is opposed by both foreign and domestic capital. With the exception of Kerala’s Left Democratic Front-led state government, public sectors, such as healthcare and education, are undergoing rapid privatisation. Most social welfare pensions are being transitioned into targeted schemes, leaving large segments of rural India excluded. Even the right to work under MGNREGA is being deliberately weakened.

The crisis has reached such severity that agricultural workers are increasingly driven to suicide, reflecting the dire conditions they endure. According to the National Crime Records Bureau report, a total of 40,685 farm labourers have taken their own lives since 2014.

When the work profile and living conditions of agricultural workers is changing, a new class of rural affluent people has emerged in villages. This class has emerged specifically in the past three-and-a-half decades of implementation of neoliberal economic policies. They have been beneficiaries of neo-liberal policies. They are also typically the first to take advantage of possibilities for higher education and modern organised sector jobs.

Apart from acquiring prime agricultural land, they have also invested capital in non-farm businesses. Various studies indicate that many landlords and big capitalist farmers are also involved in lucrative business activities. These include moneylending, operating grain mills and dairies, trading and speculating on crops (like food grains, horticultural, and forestry products), real estate, construction, cinema halls, petrol stations, hotels, transport services, leasing farm machinery, and running private educational institutions.

Education, in particular, has emerged both as a revenue stream and a means to consolidate social influence. This also generates income through financial investments. Beyond economic activities, these families actively seek influence in State power structures, such as local governance bodies (e.g., panchayati raj), state and national legislatures, law enforcement, and the legal sector.

A defining trait of this class is its political dominance in rural and semi-urban areas, exercised through alliances with bourgeois parties. Serving as a pillar of the ruling-class political machinery in villages, this group wields significant control over state institutions. It shapes the implementation of rural welfare schemes—even those targeting marginalised groups—often diverting benefits toward its own interests. This includes programmes like MGNREGA, which they heavily influence. Additionally, powerful contractors, leveraging authoritarian practices tied to their feudal heritage, aggressively maximise profits through exploitative means.

It is also our organisational experience that workers in rural India often shift between agricultural and non-agricultural roles depending on the season. Despite this fluidity, their livelihoods remain rooted in agriculture, with most originating from landless labourer households. Serious efforts are required to unite and organise workers with diverse profiles. It is important task to organise, unite all these workers and wage struggle against the ruling class in rural India.

Crucially, workers’ struggles in rural areas extend beyond workplace demands. They face systemic issues, such as landlessness, stagnant wages, exclusion from welfare schemes, gender and caste-based oppression. This underscores the need to unite rural workers, including migrant workers, both at source and destination of migration, as their common class identity, as the rural proletariat transcends the diversity of their temporary roles. 

A united and organised rural proletariat can build powerful struggles against the ruling nexus of the rural rich and Hindutva forces, paving the way for a qualitative shift in the balance of power in rural India.

The writer is Joint Secretary, All India Agriculture Workers Union. The views are personal.