‘Things Are Not Okay’: US Threatens to Withhold HIV Funding Unless Zambia Allows Plunder of Its Minerals

“The State Department is threatening Zambia with an embargo on essential medicines in order to plunder its minerals,” said one HIV prevention advocate.


HIV activists protest to demand that the Trump administration and Congress fully restore the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) programming in the lobby of the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on March 5, 2026.
(Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Mar 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The US State Department is threatening to strip HIV/AIDS and other disease prevention funds for more than a million people in the African nation of Zambia in a bid to extort the country for greater access to its mineral wealth.

The New York Times reported Monday on the draft of a memo prepared for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which states that “we will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.”

The Trump administration is considering whether to “significantly cut assistance” from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which provides daily HIV treatment to around 1.3 million Zambians and other funds for tuberculosis and malaria medications that save tens of thousands of lives each year.

At the time that PEPFAR was created, under the administration of President George W. Bush, HIV was killing around 90,000 people per year in Zambia. That number had been reduced to 16,000 in 2024, according to data from the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).



“Things are not okay,” said Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan and a Brookings Institution fellow.

Threats to cut PEPFAR are part of a broader push by the Trump administration to wield desperately needed foreign medical aid as a tool of coercion against impoverished nations, whose health systems have been thrown into turmoil by the Trump administration’s massive cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) last year.

According to the Times, 24 African nations have signed memoranda of understanding (MOU) under the Trump administration’s so-called “America First Global Health Strategy” in order to unlock some US funding that has been cut.

Many of the deals require nations to increase their own health spending in order to restore just a fraction of what the US previously provided:

“According to an analysis by the nonprofit Partners in Health, health funding under the agreements would drop by 69% to Rwanda, 61% to Madagascar, 42% to Liberia, and 34% to Eswatini, where a quarter of adults live with HIV,” the Times reported in January.

Meanwhile, the deals have come with other, often ideological, strings attached. Kenya’s memorandum requires it to provide data guaranteeing that no funding is being used for abortion care, and to direct funds to certain Christian faith-based providers, even though they refuse services like HIV care to LGBTQ+ people.

Nigeria’s agreement likewise requires more than $200 million to over 900 Christian faith-based healthcare facilities across the country and emphasizes protecting Christian victims of violence from the Islamist group Boko Haram, even though the majority of the group’s victims are Muslim.

Some countries have rejected the deals, calling them one-sided and exploitative. Last month, Zimbabwe walked away from a deal that would have provided $367 million over five years because it required the country to give the US unfettered access to citizens’ health data and biological samples.

The deal offered to Zambia is similar to those offered to other countries in that it requires the government to commit $340 million in health spending in exchange for $1 billion from the US over five years, less than half of what it received under previous US administrations. It also demands that Zambia provide citizens’ health data to the US for 10 years, longer than the deals agreed to by other nations.

But the deal also stipulates that, to receive any funding, Zambia must provide US corporations with easier access to the nation’s vast mineral wealth.

Zambia has some of the world’s largest reserves of minerals such as copper, lithium, and cobalt, which are essential to green energy technology. The Trump administration says the country has given China greater access to its mines than it has given to the US.

Zambia would also be required to share mining databases with US experts and renegotiate a massive 2024 contract with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a US-based foreign assistance agency, to reduce mining regulations.

After the terms of the deal leaked to The Guardian last month, Asia Russell, director of the HIV advocacy organisation Health GAP, derided it as a proposal for the “shameless exploitation” of Zambia.

In February, Zambia rejected the deal, with a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health saying it “did not align with the position and interests of Zambia.”

Now the Trump administration is using HIV treatment funding in an effort to force its leaders back to the table and make an example of them for other countries that may seek to go their own way.

The memo describes threats to AIDS funding as a way to demonstrate the “use of sticks” to other countries with which it seeks to negotiate.

If Zambia refuses to sign, it says, “sharp public cuts to American foreign assistance would significantly demonstrate to aid-receiving countries the seriousness of our interest in collaboration and our insistence on tangible benefits under our America First foreign policy.”

Zambia has already been stripped of more than half its annual PEPFAR funding from the US since the Trump administration returned to power last year through a combination of foreign aid freezes, rescissions, and budget cuts that stripped billions from the program.

A survey of 76 HIV clinics across 32 mostly African countries that received PEPFAR funds, conducted by the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium, found that, as a result of cuts, many experienced disruptions to testing and treatment, including drug shortages and staff layoffs.

Citing modeling studies, the researchers estimated that funding disruptions to PEPFAR just last year “resulted in more than 120,000 deaths by November 2025, including more than 13,000 child deaths.”

Another study by Imperial College London predicted that just the three-month disruption at the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term would result in more than 37,400 excess deaths by 2060.



In a statement posted to social media on Monday, Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee defended the threats to cut PEPFAR, saying that “Just like every other country, Zambia is free to walk away from these negotiations.” The REpublicans said it was “ridiculous to assume the United States should fund entire health systems for countries that turn around and give priority access to critical supply chains to China.”

Russell said that “the State Department is threatening Zambia with an embargo on essential medicines in order to plunder its minerals.”

While she said “Zambia’s MOU text is the first we know of that explicitly ties exploitation of mineral wealth,” she noted that similar “exploitative conditions” are reportedly part of other nations’ memoranda as well, but that information is scarce because they have been “negotiated in secret” and texts have not been made public.

Julius Kachidza, the chair of Zambia’s Civil Society Self-Coordinating Mechanism, said that yet another massive cut in US government funding “would be apocalyptic. It could be quite a disaster, especially to me. And the majority of people living with HIV in Zambia.”

Trump ‘Too Busy Siding With Wall Street,’ Says Warren as US Credit Card Debt Crisis Explodes

A new analysis shows that over 40% of all US adults are unable to fully pay off their credit cards each month, leaving them trapped in “cycles of persistent debt.”

Donald Trump walks onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on December 12, 2024 in New York City.
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Mar 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US President Donald Trump promised repeatedly during his 2024 campaign to temporarily cap credit card interest rates at 10%, but—in the face of Wall Street opposition—he has done nothing concrete to fulfill that pledge since returning to the White House.

That failure, according to an analysis released Tuesday, has so far cost Americans $134.5 billion in interest payments. Every day, The Century Foundation (TCF) and Protect Borrowers estimate, US credit card holders are accruing $368 million more in interest than they would have if rates were capped at 10%. The average interest rate for credit cards in the US is currently around 25%, according to a Forbes measure.


In Fox News Op-Ed, Warren Blasts Trump for Breaking Promise on Credit Card Rates

In January, Trump called on Congress to approve a 10% cap on credit card interest rates for one year, and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. But the president has not pressured bank-friendly Republicans to back the measure, and he vowed earlier this month to refuse to sign any legislation that reaches his desk unless lawmakers approve a massive voter suppression bill that is likely dead in the Senate.

“Trump could work with Congress to deliver on his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%—saving the average American with credit card debt about $900 a year,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday. “But he is too busy siding with Wall Street.”

The new analysis by TCF and Protect Borrowers shows that over 40% of adults in the US are “unable to pay off their credit card bills each month, trapping them in cycles of persistent debt that balloons ever-higher due to record-high, industry-inflated interest rates and predatory fees.”

Collectively, around 111 million Americans carry more than $1 trillion in credit card debt month to month, according to the analysis, and more than 27 million Americans can’t afford more than the minimum monthly payment on their cards.

“Americans’ monthly credit card payments have grown by nearly 40% since 2018, a trend that is continuing unabated under President Trump,” TCF and Protect Borrowers found. “From 2018 to 2025, the average monthly credit card payment rose by $553, or 38% (from $1,441 to $1,994). This growth far outstrips inflation.”

“Since Trump’s inauguration alone, the average annual amount that Americans pay in credit card bills grew by an additional $1,177 (from $22,756 to $23,933),” the groups added. “The pace of this growth suggests that, in large part due to soaring interest rates, families today devote more income to credit card payments than at any point in history.”

The nation’s worsening credit card debt crisis comes amid a broader affordability crisis in an economy that Trump has hailed as the “greatest” in history, despite all the glaring evidence to the contrary.

A West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America survey published last week found that roughly a third of respondents—equivalent to more than 80 million Americans—said they have had to skip a meal, borrow money, cut back on utilities, or make other painful trade-offs to afford healthcare expenses over the last 12 months as prices continue to rise across the economy.

“Grocery, utility, and healthcare bills are piling up, and Americans are increasingly turning to credit cards—some carrying interest rates exceeding 22%—just to make ends meet,” Jennifer Zhang, policy, research, and data Analyst at Protect Borrowers and co-author of the new analysis, said Tuesday.

“President Trump promised to tackle crushing credit card interest rates by January 20 of this year,” Zhang added, “but that deadline has come and gone.”

Democratic Rep. Summer Lee Introduces Impeachment Articles Accusing Bondi of ‘Breaking the Law’ to Protect Trump, Target Opponents

“We live in a country where we have one reality for everyday people and another for the rich, the well-connected, and the well-protected,” Lee said. “And that cannot continue to be our reality.”


US Attorney General Pam Bondi attends a Women’s History Month event in the East Room of the White House on March 12, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Mar 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Democratic Rep. Summer Lee introduced articles of impeachment against US Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday and accused the nation’s top prosecutor of “breaking the law to protect pedophiles” and prosecute President Donald Trump’s “political opponents.”

“We live in a country where we have one reality for everyday people and another for the rich, the well-connected, and the well-protected. And that cannot continue to be our reality,” Lee (D-Pa.) said in a video posted to her social media on Tuesday announcing the articles.

Two of the five articles pertain to Bondi’s conduct surrounding the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) release of files related to the late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which the DOJ has been accused of covering up to protect Trump.

One article accuses Bondi of obstruction of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena in July 2025, which required the DOJ to release the full, unredacted files to the House Oversight Committee in August as part of a congressional inquiry.



“The Department of Justice refused to adhere to the subpoena and withheld substantial evidence; evidence logs indicate that amongst the withheld evidence are FBI interviews with a survivor who accused Trump of sexual abuse,” the article reads.

In February, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee announced that they were investigating the DOJ’s handling of an accusation made against Trump to the FBI in 2019. A woman accused the president of having sexually assaulted her at the age of 13 in the 1980s.

Another impeachment article accuses Bondi of violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), signed into law in November, which required the DOJ to release “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” pertaining to the Epstein case without redacting information to protect powerful figures from embarrassment.

The DOJ missed the December 19 deadline to release the files and has since released only about 3 million pages of documents as part of its “final” trove, while millions more remain unavailable.

The pages that have been released, the article says, “were heavily redacted” to scrub the names of Trump and other powerful figures, but sensitive information about many of Epstein’s victims—including identifying details and nude photographs—was released, even though the law said redacting this information was permitted.

Meanwhile, it says the DOJ “continues to withhold documents,” including FBI interviews with the Trump accuser.

Three of four memos detailing the interviews with the accuser were posted to the DOJ website in March. They include the victim’s graphic claims that Trump hit her after she bit his penis when he attempted to force her to perform oral sex.

Trump has denied the allegations, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has called the alleged victim “disturbed.”

Approximately 37 pages of FBI records related to the accusation, including the fourth memo and pages of agent notes, remain unreleased to the public, according to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

“Pam Bondi is complicit in the most egregious cover-up in American history, hiding documents that reveal a young woman reported being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump when she was just a minor,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), a cosponsor of Lee’s impeachment articles. “Bondi’s actions are not only disgusting and wrong. They are also illegal.”

Another article accuses Bondi of having “abused” the DOJ and FBI’s powers in a partisan fashion—to target Trump’s enemies and shield his friends from accountability. It also cites Bondi’s attempts to criminalize protesters who express anti-Trump viewpoints by designating them as “domestic terrorism threats” and creating secretive lists of organizations and individuals to be targeted.

Bondi is also accused of misleading courts on several occasions—including in the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and the Salvadoran national Kilmar Ábrego García and says she presented “demonstrably false allegations in court to support baseless prosecutions against protesters.”

She is also accused of perjury before Congress during her confirmation hearing, where she pledged not to politicize her office or target journalists. It also accused her of lying during last month’s contentious hearing in which she claimed that there was “no evidence” in the Epstein files “that Donald Trump has committed a crime.”



No US attorney general has ever been impeached by the US House, which requires a simple majority. Trump was impeached twice by a Democratic-controlled House during his first term of office, though neither resulted in a conviction in the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority.

Outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had articles of impeachment filed against her in January by more than 80 cosponsors following the shooting of two US citizens by immigration agents.

Earlier this month, Noem became the highest-ranking Trump official to be fired in his second term, and earlier this week, Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees referred her to the DOJ for prosecution, also for perjury.

In addition to Ansari, Lee’s impeachment articles against Bondi are cosponsored by Reps. Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Dave Min (D-Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.). Previous articles of impeachment against Bondi have been introduced by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) earlier this month.

Lee emphasized that while Bondi “deserves to be held accountable,” this “is also about what we want our government to be, and who we want it to work for.”

“This is our chance to get justice,” Lee said, “to hold people accountable who, time and again, have gotten away with screwing us over.”

Is Trump’s Iran War the US Version of the Suez Crisis?

The crisis saw Britain’s aura of imperial power had evaporated, and its global empire headed for extinction. Trump may have similarly hastened US decline.


Iranian military personnel take part in an exercise titled “Smart Control of the Strait of Hormuz,” launched by the Naval Forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is being carried out in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz on February 16, 2026.
(Photo by Press Office of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Alfred W. Mccoy
Mar 17, 2026

TomDispatch


In the first chapter of his 1874 novel The Gilded Age, Mark Twain offered a telling observation about the connection between past and present: “History never repeats itself, but the… present often seems to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends.”

Among the “antique legends” most helpful in understanding the likely outcome of the current US intervention in Iran is the Suez Crisis of 1956, which I describe in my new book Cold War on Five Continents. After Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in July 1956, a joint British-French armada of six aircraft carriers destroyed Egypt’s air force, while Israeli troops smashed Egyptian tanks in the sands of the Sinai Peninsula. Within less than a week of war, Nasser had lost his strategic forces and Egypt seemed helpless before the overwhelming might of that massive imperial juggernaut.

But by the time Anglo-French forces came storming ashore at the north end of the Suez Canal, Nasser had executed a geopolitical masterstroke by sinking dozens of rusting ships filled with rocks at the canal’s northern entrance. In doing so, he automatically cut off Europe’s lifeline to its oil fields in the Persian Gulf. By the time British forces retreated in defeat from Suez, Britain had been sanctioned at the United Nations, its currency was at the brink of collapse, its aura of imperial power had evaporated, and its global empire was heading for extinction.

Historians now refer to the phenomenon of a dying empire launching a desperate military intervention to recover its fading imperial glory as “micro-militarism.” And coming in the wake of imperial Washington’s receding influence over the broad Eurasian land mass, the recent US military assault on Iran is starting to look like an American version of just such micro-militarism.

Washington’s fading influence across Eurasia will undoubtedly prove catalytic for the emergence of a new world order, which is likely to move far beyond the old order of US global hegemony.

Even if history never truly repeats itself, right now it seems all too appropriate to wonder whether the current US intervention in Iran might indeed be America’s version of the Suez Crisis. And should Washington’s attempt at regime change in Tehran somehow “succeed,” don’t for a second think that the result will be a successfully stable new government that will be able to serve its people well.
70 Years of Regime Change

Let’s return to the historical record to uncover the likely consequences of regime change in Iran. Over the past 70 years, Washington has made repeated attempts at regime change across the span of five continents—initially via CIA covert action during the 44 years of the Cold War and, in the decades since the end of that global conflict, through conventional military operations. Although the methods have changed, the results—plunging the affected societies into decades of searing social conflict and incessant political instability—have been sadly similar. This pattern can be seen in a few of the CIA’s most famous covert interventions during the Cold War.

In 1953, Iran’s new parliament decided to nationalize the British imperial oil concession there to fund social services for its emerging democracy. In response, a joint CIA-MI6 coup ousted the reformist prime minister and installed the son of the long-deposed former Shah in power. Unfortunately for the Iranian people, he proved to be a strikingly inept leader who transformed his country’s oil wealth into mass poverty—thereby precipitating Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

By 1954, Guatemala was implementing an historic land reform program that was investing its mostly Mayan Indigenous population with the requisites for full citizenship. Unfortunately, a CIA-sponsored invasion installed a brutal military dictatorship, plunging the country into 30 years of civil war that left 200,000 people dead in a population of only 5 million.

External intervention, whether covert or open, seems to invariably be the equivalent of hitting an antique pocket watch with a hammer and then trying to squeeze all its gears and springs back into place.

Similarly, in 1960, the Congo had emerged from a century of brutal Belgian colonial rule by electing a charismatic leader, Patrice Lumumba. But the CIA soon ousted him from power, replacing him with Joseph Mobutu, a military dictator whose 30 years of kleptocracy precipitated violence that led to the deaths of more than 5 million people in the Second Congo War (1998-2003) and continues to take a toll to this day.

In more recent decades, there have been similarly dismal outcomes from Washington’s attempts at regime change via conventional military operations. After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, US forces toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Over the next 20 years, Washington spent $2.3 trillion—and no, that “trillion” is not a misprint!—in a failed nation-building effort that was swept away when the resurgent Taliban captured the capital, Kabul, in August 2021, plunging the country into a mix of harsh patriarchy and mass privation.

In 2003, Washington invaded Iraq in search of nonexistent nuclear weapons and sank into the quagmire of a 15-year war that led to the slaughter of a million people and left behind an autocratic government that became little more than an Iranian client state. And in 2011, the US led a NATO air campaign that toppled Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s radical regime in Libya, precipitating seven years of civil war and ultimately leaving that country divided between two antagonistic failed states.

When Washington’s attempts at regime change fail, as they did in Cuba in 1961 and in Venezuela last year, that failure often leaves autocratic regimes even more entrenched, with their control over the country’s secret police strengthened and an ever-tighter death grip on the country’s economy.

Why, you might wonder, do such US interventions invariably seem to produce such dismal results? For societies struggling to achieve a fragile social stability amid volatile political change, external intervention, whether covert or open, seems to invariably be the equivalent of hitting an antique pocket watch with a hammer and then trying to squeeze all its gears and springs back into place.
The Iran War’s Geopolitical Consequences

By exploring the geopolitical implications of Washington’s latest intervention in Iran, it’s possible to imagine how President Donald Trump’s war of choice might well become Washington’s very own version of the Suez crisis.

Just as Egypt snatched a diplomatic victory from the jaws of military defeat in 1956 by shutting the Suez Canal, so Iran has now closed off the Middle East’s other critical choke point by firing its Shahed drones at five freighters in the Straits of Hormuz (through which 20% of global crude oil and natural gas regularly passes) and at petroleum refineries on the southern shore of the Persian Gulf. Iran’s drone strikes have blocked more than 90% of tanker departures from the Persian Gulf and shut down the massive Qatari refineries that produce 20% of the world supply of liquafied natural gas, sending natural gas prices soaring by 50% in much of the world and by 91% in Asia—with the price of gasoline in the US heading for $4 a gallon and the cost of oil likely to reach a staggering $150 per barrel in the near future. Moreover, through the conversion of natural gas to fertilizer, the Persian Gulf is the source for nearly half the world’s agricultural nutrients, with prices soaring by 37% for urea fertilizer in markets like Egypt and threatening both spring planting in the Northern Hemisphere and food security in the Global South.

The extraordinary concentration of petroleum production, international shipping, and capital investment in the Persian Gulf makes the Straits of Hormuz not only a choke point for the flow of oil and natural gas but also for the movement of capital for the entire global economy. To begin with the basics, the Persian Gulf holds about 50% of the world’s proven oil reserves, estimated at 859 billion barrels or, at current prices, about $86 trillion.

Time is not on Washington’s side if this war drags on for more than a few weeks.

To give you an idea of the scale of capital concentration in the region’s infrastructure, the national oil companies of the Gulf Cooperation Council invested $125 billion in their production facilities in 2025 alone, with plans to continue at that rate for the foreseeable future. To keep the global oil tanker fleet of 7,500 vessels that largely serves the Persian Gulf afloat, it costs nearly $100 million for a single large “Suezmax” tanker—of which there are about 900 normally on the high seas, worth a combined $90 billion (with frequent replacements required by the corrosion of steel in harsh maritime conditions). Moreover, Dubai has the world’s busiest international airport at the center of a global network with 450,000 flights annually—now shut down by Iranian drone strikes.

Despite all the White House media hype about the terrible swift sword of America’s recent airstrikes, the 3,000 US-Israeli bombing runs against Iran (which is two-thirds the size of Western Europe) in the war’s first week pale before the 1,400,000 bombing sorties over Europe during World War II. The striking contrast between those numbers makes the current US air attacks on Iran seem, from a strategic perspective, like shooting at an elephant with a BB gun.

Moreover, the US has limited stocks of about 4,000 interceptor missiles, which cost up to $12 million each and can’t be rapidly mass-produced. By contrast, Iran has an almost limitless supply of some 80,000 Shahed drones, 10,000 of which it can produce each month for only $20,000 each. In effect, time is not on Washington’s side if this war drags on for more than a few weeks.

Indeed, in a recent interview, pressed about the possibility that Iran’s vast flotilla of slow, low-flying Shahed drones might soon exhaust the US supply of sophisticated interceptor missiles, Pentagon leader General Dan Caine was surprisingly evasive, saying only, “I don’t want to be talking about quantities.”
Whose Boots on the Ground?

While economic and military pressures build for a shorter war, Washington is trying to avoid sending troops ashore by mobilizing Iran’s ethnic minorities, who make up about 40% of that country’s population. As the Pentagon is silently but painfully aware, US ground forces would face formidable resistance from a million-strong Basij militia, 150,000 Revolutionary Guards (who are well-trained for asymmetric guerrilla warfare), and Iran’s 350,000 regular army troops.

With other ethnic groups (like the Azeris in the north) unwilling or (like the Baloch tribes in the southeast, far from the capital) unable to attack Tehran, Washington is desperate to play its Kurdish card, just as it has done for the past 50 years. With a population of 10 million astride the highland borders of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, the Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the Middle East without their own state. As such, they have long been forced to play the imperial Great Game, making them a surprisingly sensitive bellwether for larger changes in imperial influence.

Since the rise of Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy in 2016, major and medium powers along that entire Eurasian rimland have been actively disengaging from US influence.

Although President Trump made personal calls to the top leaders in Iraq’s Kurdistan region during the first week of the latest war, offering them “extensive US aircover” for an attack on Iran, and the US even has a military airbase at Erbil, Kurdistan’s capital, the Kurds are so far proving uncharacteristically cautious.

Indeed, Washington has a long history of using and abusing Kurdish fighters, dating back to the days of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who turned their betrayal into a diplomatic art form. After he ordered the CIA to stop aiding the Iraqi Kurdish resistance to Saddam Hussein in 1975, Kissinger told an aide, “Promise them anything, give them what they get, and f… them if they can’t take a joke.”

As Iraqi forces fought their way into Kurdistan, killing helpless Kurds by the hundreds, their legendary leader Mustafa Barzani, grandfather of the current head of Iraqi Kurdistan, pleaded with Kissinger, saying, “Your Excellency, the United States has a moral and political responsibility to our people.” Kissinger did not even dignify that desperate plea with a reply and instead told Congress, “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”

Last January, in an amazingly ill-timed decision, the Trump White House betrayed the Kurds one time too many, breaking Washington’s decade-long alliance with the Syrian Kurds by forcing them to give up 80% of their occupied territory. In southeastern Turkey, the radical Kurdish PKK Party has made a deal with Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan and is actually disarming, while Iraq’s Kurdistan region is staying out of the war by respecting a 2023 diplomatic entente with Tehran for a peaceful Iran-Iraq border. President Trump has called at least one leader of the Iranian Kurds, who constitute about 10% of Iran’s population, to encourage an armed uprising. But most Iranian Kurds seem more interested in regional autonomy than regime change.

As Trump’s calls upon the Kurds to attack and the Iranian people to rise up are met with an eloquent silence, Washington is likely to end this war with Iran’s Islamic regime only furthe

r entrenched, showing the world that America is not just a disruptive power, but a fading one that other nations can do without. Over the past 100-plus years, the Iranian people have mobilized six times in attempts to establish a real democracy. At this point, though, it seems as if any seventh attempt will come long after the current US naval armada has left the Arabian Sea.
From the Granular to the Geopolitical

If we move beyond this granular view of Iran’s ethnic politics to a broader geo-strategic perspective on the Iran war, Washington’s waning influence in the hills of Kurdistan seems to reflect its fading geopolitical influence across the vast Eurasian land mass, which remains today the epicenter of geopolitical power, as it has been for the past 500 years.

For nearly 80 years, the United States has maintained its global hegemony by controlling the axial ends of Eurasia through its NATO alliance in Western Europe and four bilateral defense pacts along the Pacific littoral from Japan to Australia. But now, as Washington focuses more of its foreign policy on the Western Hemisphere, US influence is fading fast along the vast arc of Eurasia stretching from Poland, through the Middle East to Korea that scholars of geopolitics like Sir Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman once dubbed the “rimland” or “the zone of conflict.” As Spykman put it succinctly once upon a time, “Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”

Just as Sir Anthony Eden is remembered ruefully today in the United Kingdom as the inept prime minister who destroyed the British Empire at Suez, so future historians may see Donald Trump as the president who degraded US international influence.

Since the rise of Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy in 2016, major and medium powers along that entire Eurasian rimland have been actively disengaging from US influence—including Europe (by rearming), Russia (by challenging the West in Ukraine), Turkey (by remaining neutral in the present war), Pakistan (by allying with China), India (by breaking with Washington’s Quad alliance), and Japan (by rearming to create an autonomous defense policy). That ongoing disengagement is manifest in the lack of support for the Iran intervention, even from once-close European and Asian allies—a striking contrast with the broad coalitions that joined US forces in the 1991 Gulf War and the occupation of Afghanistan in 2002. With Trump’s micro-militarism in Iran inadvertently but clearly exposing the limits of American power, Washington’s fading influence across Eurasia will undoubtedly prove catalytic for the emergence of a new world order, which is likely to move far beyond the old order of US global hegemony.

Just as Sir Anthony Eden is remembered ruefully today in the United Kingdom as the inept prime minister who destroyed the British Empire at Suez, so future historians may see Donald Trump as the president who degraded US international influence with, among other things, his micro-military misadventure in the Middle East. As empires rise and fall, such geopolitics clearly remains a constant factor in shaping their fate–a lesson I try to teach in Cold War on Five Continents.

In difficult times like these, when events seem both confused and confusing, Mark Twain’s “broken fragments of antique legends” can remind us of historical analogies like the collapse of the power and influence of Great Britain or of the Soviet Union that can help us understand how the past often whispers to the present—as it indeed seems to be doing these days in the Straits of Hormuz.

© 2023 TomDispatch.com


Alfred W. Mccoy
Alfred W. McCoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is the author of "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power". Previous books include: "Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation" (University of Wisconsin, 2012), "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (American Empire Project)", "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State", and "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade".
Full Bio >

 CBS Streaming News Workers Launch 24-Hour Walkout for Better Contract

Workers “are fighting to protect their livelihoods during a period of uncertainty in broadcast news,” the union said.

By Chris Walker ,

Truthout

March 17, 2026

CBS Broadcast Center, building exterior and awning, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA.Plexi Images/GHI/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Workers within CBS News’s online streaming division began a 24-hour bicoastal walkout on Tuesday, one week after their contract with the company expired.

The workers, who provide content for CBS News 24/7, are represented by the Writers Guild of America East (WGAE). The union alleges that management’s offers to renegotiate the contract are unacceptable, featuring terms worse than those offered in the past.

Workers are seeking better wages as well as improved working conditions. When contract negotiations broke down and the contract expired on March 9, the union alerted management that a walkout would happen, delivering a strike pledge the following day.

With its parent company, Paramount Skydance, preparing to spend over $110 billion to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (with Skydance having spent more than $8 billion to buy Paramount just last year), it is unacceptable for CBS News to treat its workers poorly, the union said.

“Paramount has billions to spend acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery, but still hasn’t guaranteed fair wages and basic job protections for the workers who make their streaming news operation run,” read a statement from WGAE Vice President of Broadcast/Cable/Streaming News Beth Godvik. “Our members are walking out today to show management they stand united in their demand for a fair contract — and the WGAE is with them every step of the way.”

Striking Spanish Workers Just Showed That Amazon Is Not Invincible
The workers used creative, disruptive tactics to win. Their victory holds lessons for the global labor movement. By Jonathan Rosenblum , Truthout  January 23, 2026

The newsroom has faced a recent round of layoffs since the acquisition by Skydance. More layoffs are expected, and another round could come following the proposed purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery.

“Members are fighting to protect their livelihoods during a period of uncertainty in broadcast news,” reads a press release from WGAE explaining the walkout. “Layoffs, editorial interference and political pressure have all become existential threats following the Paramount Skydance merger, and those same concerns have escalated with a possible merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery. The bargaining unit is demanding fair pay, respect, and a sustainable work-life balance.”

The walkout is happening outside of the CBS News broadcast center in New York, as well as a CBS News affiliate station in San Francisco. The worker rights action is the first to occur since the Skydance buyout, and since conservative commentator Bari Weiss was named editor-in-chief of CBS News.

CBS News has faced widespread criticism since Weiss, a Trump-friendly journalist, took over. Her decision to pull a “60 Minutes” segment on the administration deporting immigrants to a super-prison in El Salvador was deemed a “political” choice by a correspondent on the program, for example.

Since Weiss’s takeover, the network has also gutted its climate team, which will likely result in a reduction of reporting on the climate crisis. And ratings have dropped dramatically since Weiss appointed right-wing journalist Tony Dokoupil to head its weeknight “CBS Evening News” program.

CBS News Streaming Workers Walk Out After Collapse of Contract Talks Under Bari Weiss

“Management refuses to agree to a new contract with essential work protections and fair wages,” said the workers’ negotiating team.


People walk by the CBS News Broadcast Center in New York City on December 23, 2025.
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Mar 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Unionized workers with CBS News’ streaming channel began a bicoastal one-day walkout Tuesday morning after unsuccessful negotiations for a “fair and just” contract under Bari Weiss, who has faced intense criticism on a range of topics since taking over as editor-in-chief.

CBS News is part of the media behemoth Paramount Skydance, which was formed in a controversial merger last August. Two months later, the company acquired Weiss’ The Free Press, and CEO David Ellison appointed her to also lead all of CBS News, despite her lack of television experience.

The latest contract for the streaming channel, CBS News 24/7, expired last week, after which the workers delivered a strike pledge. Tuesday’s 24-hour walkout—with rallies at CBS News Broadcast Center in New York City and at KPIX-TV CBS News Bay Area in San Francisco, California—kicked off at 6:00 am Eastern time.

“CBS News 24/7 journalists are walking off the job on both coasts today because management refuses to agree to a new contract with essential work protections and fair wages,” the bargaining committee and contract action team said in a statement from Writers Guild of America East (WGAE).

“Despite multiple days of good-faith negotiations and a strike pledge signed by 95% of our members to emphasize the seriousness of our demands, management continues to offer us worse terms than in our last contracts,” the team said. “We chose this field to cover the news, but we believe this work stoppage is necessary to achieve a fair contract. We eagerly await an acceptable contract offer from Paramount—which just shelled out tens of billions of dollars to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.”

Deadline explained that “the newsroom has undergone rounds of layoffs and buyouts, and more are expected. There also are fears of further downsizing when Paramount completes its deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, given that will leave the company with two global news outlets, CBS News and CNN.”




Beth Godvik, WGAE vice president of broadcast/cable/streaming news, called out Paramount for striking a $110 billion deal with Warner Bros. Discovery while it “still hasn’t guaranteed fair wages and basic job protections for the workers who make their streaming news operation run.”

“Our members are walking out today to show management they stand united in their demand for a fair contract—and the WGAE is with them every step of the way,” said Godvik.

As The Wrap noted:
The battle puts Weiss, an opinion journalist who had no TV news experience before she became CBS News’ editor-in-chief last October, in the position of negotiating with a union under her purview for the first time. The union dispute comes as the network has already been rocked by star departures and scrutiny over its coverage.

The Free Press, the anti-woke outlet Weiss cofounded and still leads, is not unionized, while CBS News has four main bargaining units, including the Writers Guild of America-backed CBS News 24/7, which launched in 2014 and rebroadcasts CBS News shows like “60 Minutes” and “CBS Mornings” along with original shows like “The Takeout with Major Garrett.”

A CBS News spokesperson told The Guardian that “we continue to negotiate in good faith and hope to reach a fair resolution quickly.”

Meanwhile, multiple members of Congress expressed support for the work stoppage on social media.

“If Paramount can shell out billions of dollars to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, then they can pay their unionized CBS staff a fair wage,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). “I stand with the CBS staff who walked out today as they fight these corporate giants for essential protections and fair contracts.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) declared that “American workers deserve fair pay and basic protections—full stop. I stand with the 60 CBS News 24/7 journalists walking off the job today in New York and San Francisco. Paramount is finalizing a $110 BILLION deal but can’t give its own workers a fair contract?”

Mega Media, MAGA Lies

Corporate media consolidation amplifies Trump regime propaganda.


In a graphic shared on his Truth Social platform on March 14, 2026, President Donald Trump brags about “reshaping the media.”
(Image via Donald Trump/Truth Social)

Brian Tierney
Mar 17, 2026

Common Dreams

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better!”

So said war-addicted Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at a Pentagon press briefing last week as he complained about news outlets—specifically CNN—not covering the death and destruction of the war on Iran with the elated positivity Hegseth feels it so clearly deserves.

It was the latest example of the Trump regime demanding not merely a pliant news media, but an entirely servile industry that functions as its propaganda arm. While this fascist worldview has been most dramatically displayed in President Donald Trump’s brazen attempts to censor and cancel late-night comedians like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert for their anti-Trump commentaries, ruling elites in Trump’s orbit have long pursued a dangerous realignment and consolidation of media power to serve their right-wing agenda.

Hegseth’s outburst directed at CNN reflects the Trump regime’s ploy to concentrate more corporate news networks under the command of David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance and son of right-wing billionaire Larry Ellison.

The growth of the Ellison father-son empire is based on refashioning the American press—or what’s left of it—into the palm of Trump’s hand.

Last year, Trump cleared the way for Paramount’s merger with Ellison’s Skydance Media after Paramount paid a $16 million lawsuit filed by Trump against Paramount’s CBS News. Now Paramount Skydance is on the verge of acquiring an even larger legacy media giant, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.

“One family, the right-wing Trump-aligned Ellisons, will soon control: TikTok, CBS, CNN, HBO, Discovery Channel, BET, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, DC Studios, Fandango, Miramax, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount, PlutoTV, Showtime, TBS, The CW, TNT, Warner Bros., and more,” US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned. “This is oligarchy.”

David’s father, Larry, is a staunch Zionist and the sixth richest person in the world, with an estimated net worth of more than $198 billion. He is also one of Trump’s closest allies. The growth of the Ellison father-son empire is based on refashioning the American press—or what’s left of it—into the palm of Trump’s hand.

But it isn’t merely one family’s broadcast news juggernaut that rules this age of media monopoly power.
Censorship and MAGA’s Mouthpiece

Over the weekend, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr issued new Orwellian threats against unnamed networks running “fake news” (i.e., reporting that lacks the government’s deliriously upbeat spin) on the Iran war. Carr suggested he would revoke or refuse to renew the broadcasting licenses of networks that don’t “correct course.” While the reactions against Carr’s threats were swift, Trump wholly endorsed the FCC edict on Sunday while deriding media organizations as “Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic.”

But outside of media mergers and acquisitions, a wider net of news outlets has been pulled closer into the Trump regime’s hold. This includes the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, with its newly stated commitment to “personal liberties and free markets” along with editorials that reveal its increasing fealty to Trump.

The New York Times, while seemingly less beholden to the Trump regime, continues to churn out a steady stream of poorly disguised Zionist propaganda and breathless coverage of Trump’s imperialist military interventions. The so-called newspaper of record is so steeped in the machinery of empire that screaming prejudice drips from its discriminate use of language, as demonstrated by its passive headlines on Israeli atrocities against Palestinians that obscure Israel’s role versus its matter-of-fact reporting on recent Iranian strikes targeting Israel.

CBS News, however, proves that the Ellison media empire buys more consistent right-wing editorial leadership and allegiance to Trump.

Bari Weiss, spawned from the journalistic cesspool of the Times to later found the hilariously named website The Free Press, has been catapulted to unearned heights of the Ellison empire. While she possesses no experience as a reporter, her hard-line Zionism and anti-woke politics made her a perfect editor in chief to lead CBS News aggressively to the right.

“The mega rich have always been willing to hire, promote, and fund people willing to unquestioningly run interference for their interests while making them feel like their near-pathological selfishness, hoarding of money and power, and total disregard for the public interest is somehow morally justifiable. CBS News editor in chief Bari Weiss is simply another in a long line of feckless water carriers for the one percent,” Elizabeth Spiers wrote in The Nation last December.

“[Weiss] has shown she’s not merely stupendously unqualified—she’s ideologically opposed to the practice of good journalism,” Spiers added.

Since Trump led the US empire into its unprovoked war on Iran last month, Weiss’ CBS has featured an infinite lineup of pro-war commentators, leading CBS’s own staffers to describe the network’s war coverage as a “propaganda-palooza.” Of course, such propagandizing isn’t exclusive to Trump’s newfound love of foreign wars. This was made clear in December when Weiss—who doesn’t hide her cringeworthy fawning over Trump—abruptly pulled a “60 Minutes” story on the notorious El Salvadoran prison camp where the Trump regime has sent many deportees in its ruthless war on immigrants. Since Weiss’ takeover, there’s also been a decline in CBS coverage on climate change.
Breaking the Fascist Echo Chamber

Against this grim backdrop of the decaying “Fourth Estate” of American “democracy,” there remains the ever-exploding and unwieldy landscape of independent media and social platforms. Oligarchs and authoritarians like Trump have struggled to exert control over the endlessly diverse and expanding universe of information and narratives exponentially building itself on these platforms.

Not that they haven’t tried.

Right-wing elites have successfully pushed the Meta platforms of Facebook and Instagram as well as Google’s YouTube to censor pro-Palestinian content. Trump launched his own social platform, Truth Social, in reaction to perceived anti-conservative biases in Twitter’s algorithm—which is now run by Trump’s favorite Big Tech billionaire sociopath, Elon Musk, who renamed it “X” and has proudly moved the platform’s algorithmic biases decidedly to the right. And, of course, we cannot forget TikTok, whose new US owned operation is now controlled by an investor group led by none other than Larry Ellison.

Now, as Trump oversees the final stages of a decades-long merger of corporate power and the state, his regime expects media organizations to serve not just Wall Street but the White House as well.

As is true of most pernicious policies from the Trump regime, right-wing designs on big media did not begin with Trump. Corporate media has long been an industry rife with monopolization and abuse of anti-trust laws to amass market dominance, from the Disney-ABC merger in the mid-90s to the right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group’s ongoing vast control over local news outlets reaching more than 40% of US households.

But alongside the Trump regime’s growing media machine, which is designed to shield it from public scrutiny, is also the inverse agenda of strengthening the regime’s ability to scrutinize the public through domestic surveillance technology. Led by Hegseth and Trump’s resident villainous creep Stephen Miller, the regime is pushing AI companies to hand over unrestricted use of their technology to spy on Americans and urging Congress to expand government surveillance powers.

If it seems that warnings about Trump’s right-wing media takeover are sensationalist or overstated, Trump himself is quite clear about it. The despot shared an infographic over the weekend illustrating how “President Trump Is Reshaping the Media,” celebrating the defunding of NPR, the departure of prominent news anchors from major networks, and mass layoffs at the Washington Post.

Corporate media consolidation has always been about serving the interests of the elite and their capitalist system of endless personal profit. Now, as Trump oversees the final stages of a decades-long merger of corporate power and the state, his regime expects media organizations to serve not just Wall Street but the White House as well.

The good news is that the public is not powerless against this slide toward state-controlled media. If viewers can pressure a corporation as powerful as Disney with the threat of canceling their subscriptions until it spurns government bullying, as in the case of Kimmel’s show, such collective action can be replicated and broadened to other forms of economic pressure by the masses. In the same way, news worker unions like The NewsGuild CWA, WGAE, and others can work to mobilize newsrooms against the fascist media coup.

The Trump regime’s right-wing media echo chamber can and must be broken through collective people power, both in the form of boycotts and by supporting independent media that answer to no politicians, no government masters, and no corporate overlords.

More ‘Beef’ With Bobby: Meat and Masculinity

In 2026, the federal government is telling us how men should be men, with devastating effects on our health and planet.

Frances Moore Lappé

Lewis D’Avigdor
Mar 17, 2026

Common Dreams


In January 2026, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the Food and Drug Administration’s new inverted food pyramid to replace the Michelle Obama’s “myplate” visualization. There is some good in the change: promoting whole foods and minimizing processed foods, as I noted in My “Beef” with Bobby. But the science ends here as RFK instead relies on bro-science. Taking his cue from the “manosphere” and MAHA wellness influencers, he emphasizes animal proteins over plant proteins. More on that in a moment.

Just one month after releasing the new food pyramid, RFK released a workout video with Kid Rock where the pair eat steaks, pump iron, and then drink raw milk in a hot tub together. It’s difficult to watch, but even more difficult to describe. Comedian Stephen Colbert called it “senior softcore that feels like dropping acid.”

RFK has long sought to prove his manliness. He has admitted to taking testosterone, while insisting, unconvincingly, that he’s not on steroids. The administration more broadly seems to have an obsessive and desperate need to demonstrate its masculine prowess. In fact, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s warrior mentality may have contributed to the US attacks on Iran. It has certainly contributed to his callous dismissal of human casualties. Both meanwhile defer to President Donald Trump’s allegedly off-the charts levels of testosterone.

These food policies and performative workouts might appear unrelated. But, a closer connection exists between beef, masculinity, and the American nation, one that has, in fact, twined since the country’s earliest days. RFK’s effort to Make American Healthy Again is mere revival of a longstanding American narrative.

For all its chest-thumping certainty, this administration’s relationship to masculinity looks less like confidence than anxiety, much like the frontier myth itself.

The idea that meat is manly can be traced to the cultural founding of the nation on the actual frontier. In 1893, historian Frederick Jackson Turner argued that the struggle to conquer the wilderness had fostered American virtues of independence, self-reliance, and democracy. Proving your manly virtue on the frontier made immigrants into American men as America became a virtuous nation. Declaring the closing of the frontier, Jackson lamented America’s ability to grow and innovate. Men would wither without the opportunity to test their mettle as the nation expanded.

Beef was central to imperial expansion on the frontier. Ranching not only justified the expropriation American Indian land, but beef products supplied to the US Army made expansion possible. By slaughtering to the brink of extinction the 50 million bison that roamed the Great Plains, they settled the “Indian question.” Historian Joshua Specht calls cattle “mobile colonizers.” Culturally, ranchers and cowboys justified the violence against American Indians in the interests of civilization. Central to this myth was the frontier man, bringing civilization to the feminized “vanishing Indian,” a curious paradox, to be sure, where Native Americans could be at once docile and violent.

Today we are left with an embarrassing historical echo. Protein as the final frontier of fitness influencers ironically returns us to the actual frontier in American history. Now we can see why RFK’s two provocations in the culture war of 2026 are related. Food has always been gendered and tied to nothing less than the ideals of the nation and what it means to be an American.

Today we see the same gendering of meat wrapped up with big business. Only un-American soy boys refuse to eat meat. Meat advertisements often demonstrate the masculinity of meat consumption by displaying oversexualized women cooking meat, implying that both women and animals are to be dominated and consumed by men.

There is of course no evidence that soy intake affects male hormones, or that meat consumption is required for elite athletic performance. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose character once said, “You hit like a vegetarian,“ has more recently called for cutting back on meat, noting that it isn’t necessary for athletes and harms the planet. James Cameron’s documentary The Game Changers challenges the myth that animal protein is needed for physical strength and elite athletic performance. Cameron follows tennis stars, Olympians, and even the ultimate fighter James Wilks to see how plant protein permeates their diets. But the myth lives on, perpetrated by RFK’s shirtless workouts and emphasis on eating meat. And because the old adage ”follow the money“ seems to be guiding light for this administration, it should come as no surprise that the meat industry is also a major donor.

Still, the science on red meat consumption and its effects on our planet and health are clear. Red meat consumption reduces life expectancy by increasing risks of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and cancer. Cattle also consume much of the world’s arable land, leading to deforestation and increased greenhouse gas emissions. While beans and legumes make it into the dietary guidelines, they are entirely absent from the pyramid.

Despite the eagerness of the administration, Kid Rock, and MAHA followers to heed RFK’s food and exercise advice, many of these same figures recoiled when Michelle Obama tried to move toward nutrient-dense fruit and vegetables in school lunches. Republicans accused her of trying to impose a “nanny-state,” and bristled at her impudent attempt to shape what Americans choose to eat. Again, gender is at work in our food policies.

Despite claiming to restore “scientific integrity” and “common sense,” RFK ignores the government’s own “Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee,” which consistently advocated plant-based sources of protein, especially beans and lentils while reducing the intake of red meat. The committee even suggested moving the “Beans, Peas, and Lentils Subgroup from the Vegetables Food Group to the Protein Foods Group.”

Cultural tropes can be hard to break, but it is time for a new generation of athletes and influencers to confront the wellness-to-fascism pipeline. Our secretary of health should not be making policy decisions on the basis of pseudoscience for the sake of winning a culture war. Nor should his leadership parrot “manosphere” talking points that openly embrace a hostility toward women and decry the feminization of Western society. This is nothing short of what one nutritionist called a “vibes-based policy disaster.” For all its chest-thumping certainty, this administration’s relationship to masculinity looks less like confidence than anxiety, much like the frontier myth itself. Still, these performances should not require the rest of us to pay with our health and our planet for their fragile egos.