Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Trump’s Anti-Trans Education Order Relies on Intimidation. We Must Not Yield.

If parents, students and educators together refuse these policies, the policies will become unenforceable.
February 7, 2025

People gather to defend transgender rights in New York City, on February 3, 2025
.Charly Triballeau / AFP via Getty Images


Autocracy depends in large part on conformity of thought, which explains Donald Trump’s focus on K-12 education during the early days of his second administration. Executive orders he issued in January include an executive order attacking “gender ideology” and defining gender as immutable and based on biological sex; an order attempting to push federal funding towards private charter schools; and an order called “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which details his intention to remove and replace anti-oppression education in public schools with right-wing indoctrination, and to target schools that support trans students.

The K-12 order is just the beginning of what looks to be a prolonged propaganda campaign: It instructs the Departments of Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services to furnish an “Ending Indoctrination Strategy” to the president by the end of April, with support from the Department of Justice. The intent is clear, and chilling: Trump would see an end to any form of education or school policy that supports “gender ideology” (a blanket term for pro-trans policies and beliefs) or “discriminatory equity ideology” (a blanket term for anti-racism). He demands that his cabinet members furnish a plan for cutting federal funds, including grants and contracts, to schools and programs that have such programs and policies. He also gives the Department of Justice carte blanche to target individuals who do not comply with the new rules, even encouraging legal action against educators who support trans students and suggesting that supporting students in their transition is somehow unlawful.

While it currently doesn’t authorize any particular legal action on the part of the federal government, the “Radical Indoctrination” order is a forceful piece of propaganda. It calls to prevent “social transition,” which the order defines as “the process of adopting a ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender marker’ that differs from a person’s sex.” Supporting social transition can be as benign as respecting a student’s chosen name, or respecting their privacy and not outing them to their parents.

The wording is a full-on attempt to criminalize trans youth and those who support them, and force them back into the closet. The order calls on schools to eliminate counseling services for trans youth, refuse to call students by their preferred names or pronouns, disallow the use of gender-aligned restrooms or locker rooms, and prevent kids from joining sports teams or other extracurriculars that align with their gender identity. It implies that educators who don’t follow these cruel directives may be “sexually exploiting minors,” “unlawfully practicing medicine by offering diagnoses and treatment without the requisite license,” and “otherwise unlawfully facilitating the social transition of a minor student.”

Here we see the ideological arm of the right wing’s campaign against trans people taking shape in federal policy: The argument is not just that trans youth should not access hormones or surgeries, but that trans youth should not in any way be recognized in public space or even supported privately at school.

Related Story
“I hope that DPS and other schools fight back for their students,” said Z Williams, a trans activist in Denver. By Zane McNeill , Truthout January 29, 2025

Even if these orders are unenforceable, the psychological impacts of this bullying propaganda must be mitigated. Trump and his cronies are trying to put a scarlet letter on simple acts of etiquette and respect, for which our communities have been fighting for decades — and make pariahs out of trans people and those who support them.
Does the Trump Administration Really Have the Power to Do This?

Legally — no, not really. The education outlet Chalkbeat notes that “states, school districts, and even individual schools have traditionally called the shots on everything from what kids learn to which restroom transgender students use,” and asserts Trump’s executive order has little power over the day-to-day operations of public schools. The details of the plans have yet to be developed, and when they do, they will likely face legal challenges. In the meantime, there should be no immediate changes to public education.

However, it’s hard to measure the effects of “anticipatory obedience,” historian Timothy Snyder’s phrase for the tendency of citizens under authoritarian or autocratic rule to preemptively comply with orders and expectations. During his last administration, much of Trump’s talk about education was just that — unenforceable talk. But a survey in 2022, during the Biden administration, found that one in five teachers in states without legal restrictions on discussions about race and gender were told by their school or district leaders to “limit their classroom conversations about political and social issues.” State laws that threaten similar consequences for schools that support trans students, and an overall environment of anti-trans and racist backlash, have created an environment of profound fear and confusion for many educators.

Anticipatory obedience is dangerous, but it is not delusional. Trump has announced plans to purge the entire federal government of “DEI hires” as well as those supportive of diversity and inclusion, and has made clear that government employees will be targeted for their beliefs. On February 1, several Department of Education employees were placed on paid leave for having previously participated in a diversity training. While the administration may not be able to legally dictate classroom behavior or pull funds from noncompliant schools or districts, it has an unchecked ability to encourage obedience through this kind of intimidation — and a seemingly limitless willingness to use bullying tactics regardless of their legality.






Federal funding cuts, if they were implemented and if the Trump administration defeated or simply ignored legal challenges, could be devastating for some public school systems. Out of the total budget for public schooling in the U.S., the federal government funds just 13.6 percent. But in places with low state and local funding toward schools — like South Dakota, Mississippi and North Carolina — federal funds per pupil make up nearly a quarter of schools’ already low budgets.

And pulling federal funds would affect some areas more severely than others: The Department of Education’s two largest grant-making areas are programs for disabled students and Title I programs, which provide services for low-income students. If federal funds are indeed to be used as a bludgeon to control curricula and prevent teachers from supporting trans students, the bludgeon will be aimed at some of the most vulnerable young people.

So, the idea asserted by many news outlets that the U.S. Department of Education “has no power over what’s taught in schools” perhaps depends on your definition of power. Legal power? No. Coercive power, and potentially threatening ideological power? Yes. And that is what many of Trump’s executive orders are about: sowing chaos and encouraging anticipatory obedience in an attempt to maximize his administration’s power, regardless of legal authority.

There may also be a divide and conquer element to this strategy: The new federal government has removed recognition of trans people from sites and policies that used to include them, such as federal travel guidance and web pages about adoption and social security. In addition to making trans people invisible, this may be an attempt to drive a wedge between lesbian, gay and bisexual communities (which are not explicitly mentioned in this executive order) and the much smaller trans population. In addition to dividing trans youth from LGB advocates, the order has the potential to pit educators fearful of being targeted against their own trans students.

How Are Districts and States Responding Now?

States that already legislate in favor of the safety and protection of trans students, such as New York, Washington and California, have given no indication that they will encourage compliance with the federal orders before a legal challenge. California’s attorney general has already vowed to defend educators and students from the Trump administration’s attacks, and the Los Angeles school board has declared its school system a “sanctuary” for both undocumented and LGBTQ students. Journalist Erin Reed reported on several other districts across the country that have made statements of solidarity with trans students.

But many districts have been quiet, or slow to respond: In New York City, parents are pushing the public schools’ leadership to issue a similar statement of noncompliance.

In states that have already begun to pass and implement anti-trans policies in public schools, these orders only continue and encourage a process already underway. In 2024 alone, 19 bills were signed into law at the state level that affect trans youth in education, including curriculum bans, laws requiring schools to out trans children to their parents, and laws banning trans youth from using restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identities.








How Can Students, Parents and School Districts Resist?

Even in states with virulent anti-trans laws already in place, school districts have leeway to continue to pass and enforce inclusive and supportive policies. There is also the power of the pulpit: Boards of education are locally elected, and elected officials are free to speak out, which in turn can empower school leaders to do the same. Teachers and students are the most vulnerable here; school boards, parents and district leaders should be outspoken and unified in their resistance and solidarity. Parents in every district should be lobbying their elected officials now to promise protection for trans students — and by making this kind of noise, parents and elected officials can provide protection for educators, too.

For example, Columbus City School District in Ohio has vowed to maintain support for all students, while the president of the Ohio Education Association accused Trump of “instilling fear and sowing division in a way that is intended to try to stop educators from teaching the truth.”

Policy advocate Guillermo Mayer writes in EdSource that, “While the potential consequences of this order are staggering to imagine, the most effective way to resist it is clear: Schools, educators and communities should not cave in to threats and intimidation and rush to voluntarily comply with this likely unconstitutional and unlawful order.”

In Chicago on Monday, Kelly Hayes reports teachers themselves rallied in support of their marginalized students — with threats coming from all sides including potential ICE raids, attacks on trans kids, and potential government censorship and targeting, the Chicago Teachers Union is leaning on its proactive politics and community organizing skills.

Solidarity and a refusal to practice “anticipatory obedience” are essential. If parents, students and educators together refuse these policies, the policies will become unenforceable — remember that right now, they are effectively just a form of intimidation, a test to see how easy we are to scare into submission. To allow this tactic to work would be a cowardly abandonment of trans kids, and of all kids, who should be free to explore their gender identities in a safe environment, no matter what.
Medicaid Work Requirements Could Boot 36 Million People Off Their Health Coverage: Report

"Work requirements are simply another way to cut Medicaid," wrote the authors of an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.




A demonstrator holds a "Medicaid Cuts Kill" sign at a rally in New York on July 9, 2020.
(Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Feb 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

As right-wing lawmakers pursue imposing conditions on Americans' ability to access Medicaid and other social services, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities this week published analysis warning that work requirements for Medicaid recipients could put 36 million Americans, or 44% of all Medicaid enrollees, at risk of losing their health insurance.

"Research shows that work requirements do not increase employment," according to the authors of the CBPP report, which was published on Wednesday. The authors argue that these types of requirements are based on the premise that Medicaid enrollees do not work, when data shows that they do.

"Nearly 2 in 3 adult Medicaid enrollees aged 19-64 already work, and most of the rest would likely not be explicitly subject to the requirement based on having a disability, caring for family members, or attending school," the report states.

The group estimates that of those 36 million people who could be impacted, 20 million are enrolled through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.

While almost all Medicaid enrollees either work or would qualify for an exemption under most Medicaid work requirement proposals, according to CBPP, the report points to multiple past examples that indicate many enrollees still lose coverage with the imposition of work requirements due to "administrative burden and red tape."

For example, when Arkansas in 2018 temporarily implemented a policy that placed work requirements on Medicaid recipients, about 25% of enrollees subject to the requirements, some 18,000 people, lost coverage before a federal court paused the program seven months later.

As another example, New Hampshire implemented a short-lived Medicaid work requirement program in 2019 with more flexibility in reporting requirements and "more robust outreach efforts" in order to avoid Arkansas' mistakes, according to CBPP, but 2 in 3 enrollees who had to comply with the requirements "were likely to be disenrolled after just two months, amid reports of widespread confusion among enrollees about how to comply with the requirements."

The analysis—which the authors say is not an estimate of the number of people who will be impacted by a specific policy proposal—defines the population at risk of losing their coverage as adults between ages 19 and 64 who are not enrolled in Medicaid through disability pathways, i.e. a wider net of people than are specifically targeted in some recent GOP proposals.

The 36 million number is a larger group of enrollees compared to a previous CBPP estimate that was in response to a specific proposal whose work requirements would have targeted fewer people.

Multiple recent GOP proposals regarding Medicaid work requirements target "able-bodied" workers, though they vary in other specifics.

The far-right policy blueprint "Project 2025" calls for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to "clarify that states have the ability to adopt work incentives for able-bodied individuals" on Medicaid. And in late January congressional Republicans passed around a list of ideas for how to fund a bill full of GOP priorities that included imposing Medicaid work requirements for "able-bodied" adults without dependents, modeled after the Limit, Save, Grow Act, a bill passed by the House in 2023.

On Thursday, Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) reintroduced the Jobs and Opportunities for Medicaid Act, a bill that would require "able-bodied adults without dependents who receive Medicaid benefits to work or volunteer for at least 20 hours per week."

Because the Kennedy and Schmitt bill includes an exemption for adults with dependents, it would impact a smaller number of people than the CBPP's Thursday analysis. But still, as a general matter, "work requirements are simply another way to cut Medicaid," according to the authors of the analysis. Republicans' January list of cost cut options estimated that adding Medicaid work requirements along the lines of what was specified in the Limit, Save, Grow Act would yield $100 billion in 10-year savings.In a Friday letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), all 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus wrote: "We urge you to reject proposals that use Medicaid as a piggy bank for partisan priorities and continue to defend the importance of this vital program."




Congress Urged to 'Stand Up for Itself' as Trump Admin Halts EV Charger Progra

"Freezing these EV charging funds is yet another one of the Trump administration's unsound and illegal moves," said one climate advocate.


The Trump administration is attempting to block a program that would build a national network of electric vehicle chargers.

(Photo: Shutterstock)

Jessica Corbett
Feb 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Climate campaigners are blasting the Trump administration's move to halt a $5 billion initiative to build electric vehicle chargers along highways across the United States and calling on Congress to fight back against the attack on the grant program from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.

The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program was established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Natural Resources Defense Council's Beth Hammon said in a Friday statement that "on a bipartisan basis, Congress funded this program to build a new vehicle charging network nationwide. The Trump administration does not have the authority to halt it capriciously."

Hammon, a senior vehicle charging advocate at the group, warned that "stopping funding midstream will result in chaos and delays in states across the nation. It will throw state efforts into turmoil, wreak havoc with the companies that install the chargers, and risk the jobs of their workers. The only winner from this chaos is the oil industry."

"This should not stand. Courts have already blocked the Trump administration's other illegal attempts to halt legally mandated funding," she added. "Congress needs to stand up for itself: This move and many others from the Trump administration steals away its constitutionally established spending authority."



Katherine García, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All campaign, similarly declared Friday that "freezing these EV charging funds is yet another one of the Trump administration's unsound and illegal moves. This is an attack on bipartisan funding that Congress approved years ago and is driving investment and innovation in every state, with Texas as the largest beneficiary."

"Throwing out states' plans, which were carefully built together with business, utilities, and communities, only hurts America's growing clean energy economy," she stressed. "The NEVI program has helped the U.S. build out the infrastructure needed to support our nation's necessary transition to pollution-free vehicles. More electric vehicle charging means better public health, reduced climate emissions, good-paying green jobs, and healthier communities."

President Donald Trump has taken various anti-climate actions since Inauguration Day—declaring a "national energy emergency," ditching the Paris agreement again, and enabling new liquefied natural gas exports. One executive order calls for "terminating the Green New Deal," and directs agencies to pause disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 law, specifically mentioning the NEVI program.

Trump targeted the initiative despite his ties to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, head of the president's destructive Department of Government Efficiency. Wiredreported that the billionaire's "electric automobile company has been a recipient of $31 million in awards from the NEVI program, according to a database maintained by transportation officials, accounting for 6% of the money awarded so far."

The Federal Highway Administration on Thursday sent a letter—first reported by InsideEVs—informing state transportation departments that "the new leadership of the Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has decided to review the policies underlying the implementation of the NEVI Formula Program," and, as a result, "is also immediately suspending the approval of all" state deployment plans previously greenlit by the Biden administration.

As Heatmapdetailed:
According to Paren, an EV charging data analytics firm that has been closely following the rollout of the NEVI program, states are legally entitled to spend roughly $3.27 billion on NEVI. That accounts for plans approved for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. To date, states have awarded about $615 million of the funds to just under 1,000 projects—with 10% of those projects being led by Tesla.

The letter says states will still be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to previously awarded projects, "in order to not disrupt current financial commitments." But the more than $2.6 billion that has not been awarded will be frozen.

The outlet noted that advocates expected Trump's attacks on the program won't survive legal challenges.

"This should be carefully scrutinized by states and the legal community," said Justin Balik, the senior state program director for Evergreen Action, "as it looks like an attempt to sabotage the program based on ideology that's dressed up in bureaucratic language about plan and guidance revisions."

Andrew Rogers, a former deputy administrator and chief counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, told Wired that "there is no legal basis for funds that have been apportioned to states to build projects being 'decertified' based on policy."

Paren chief analyst Loren McDonald also doesn't think that the Trump administration can legally suspend the program.

"I'm assuming the lawsuits from states will start soon, and this will go to court and Congress," McDonald toldPolitico. "But the Trump [administration] will succeed in just causing havoc and slowing things down for a while."

Already, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Nebraska have put their NEVI programs on hold.

Whether Congress—particuarly Democrats, who are the minority party in both chambers—will fight back is unclear. Hill Heat's Brad Johnson pointed out on the social media platform Bluesky that two dozen members of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted with Republicans to confirm Trump's DOT chief, Sean Duffy.


As Common Dreams reported last month, right after Duffy was confirmed, the secretary directed DOT staff to immediately begin the process of rescinding or replacing former President Joe Biden's clean car pollution standards.

"These commonsense, popular fuel economy standards save drivers money at the pump and reduce dangerous pollution from vehicles," Sierra Club's García said at the time. "Sean Duffy is selling American families out to Big Oil, burdening us with higher fuel prices and more polluting gas-guzzlers that harm our health."

Top Democrat Demands Answers on Treasury 'Cover-Up' of Musk Team's Access to Key System

"If Wired's reporting is accurate, the Treasury Department deliberately misled or outright lied to Congress to cover up DOGE's handling of the nation's most sensitive financial system," wrote Sen. Ron Wyden.


U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) speaks during a rally outside of the Treasury Department on February 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Jemal Countess/Getty Images for MoveOn)

Jake Johnson
Feb 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden on Friday demanded answers from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent after reporting contradicted the department's narrative about the level of payment system access granted to lieutenants of unelected billionaire Elon Musk.

In a letter to Bessent, Wyden (D-Ore.) pointed to a Thursday Wiredstory revealing that a Department of Government EfficiencyDOGE) operative had "write access" to critical Treasury payment systems, despite the Treasury Department and Trump White House's insistence to the contrary.

According to Wired, 25-year-old Marko Elez—who resigned from his position Thursday after The Wall Street Journal inquired into his racist social media posts—"was granted privileges including the ability to not just read but write code on two of the most sensitive systems in the U.S. government: the Payment Automation Manager (PAM) and Secure Payment System (SPS) at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS)."

"Reporting from Talking Points Memo confirmed that Treasury employees were concerned that Elez had already made 'extensive changes' to code within the Treasury system," Wired added. "The payments processed by BFS include federal tax returns, Social Security benefits, Supplemental Security Income benefits, and veterans' pay."

"These mission-critical systems are not to be manipulated or subject to the whims of unelected billionaires or software engineers with fantasies of destroying the federal government from within."

Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, wrote Friday that "if Wired's reporting is accurate, the Treasury Department deliberately misled or outright lied to Congress to cover up DOGE's handling of the nation's most sensitive financial system."

"Treasury's refusal to provide straight answers about DOGE's actions, as well as its refusal to provide a briefing requested by several Senate committees, only heightens my suspicions," Wyden added. "It now appears Mr. Elez has resigned his position, not due to the flimsy and transparent cover-up of his ability to alter Treasury Department payment system code, but due to his links to a social media account that advocated racism and eugenics."

In a February 4 letter to Wyden, the Treasury Department claimed that DOGE staffers would "have read-only access to the coded data of the Fiscal Service's payment systems in order to continue this operational efficiency assessment."

Wyden demanded Friday that the Treasury Department identify any officials other than Elez who were given "read-write" access to the Treasury payment system. The senator also specifically demanded to know whether Musk himself has been granted access to the system's data.

"Reports make clear that Musk and his DOGE functionaries have sought access to the payments system not for an audit, but instead to manipulate the system in order to enact a political agenda," Wyden wrote. "The Treasury Department's payment systems facilitate nearly 90% of all federal payments and more than $6 trillion annually. These mission-critical systems are not to be manipulated or subject to the whims of unelected billionaires or software engineers with fantasies of destroying the federal government from within."

Consumer Advocates Decry Musk 'Minions' as DOGE Targets CFPB


"It sounds like the plot of a bad Bond movie but it's real and the American people are the real victims."




The exterior of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in seen in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Ted Eytan/Flickr/cc)

Julia Conley
Feb 07, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Consumer advocates on Friday called on allies to defend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency after reports indicated DOGE personnel had entered the agency's office and possibly obtained access to its online databases.

Members of the CFPB Union NTEU 335, part of the National Treasury Employees Union, published a press release, later deleted from their website, noting that the names of three staffers of DOGE appeared in the consumer protection agency's internal staff directory Thursday evening—signaling that the CFPB is the latest target of Musk's illegal plunder of numerous federal offices.

Numerous outlets—includingWired and Punchbowl News—confirmed that the DOGE personnel had been granted access to CFPB offices and databases. Politico, citing people familiar with the developments, also reported the three individuals had been added as "senior advisers" to the agency.

The CFPB Union, in the now-deleted statement, identified the DOGE staffers as former Big Pharma lobbyist Chris Young; former Tesla and X employee Nikhil Rajpal; and Gavin Kliger, an "Elon fanboy" who graduated from University of California, Berkeley in 2020.

"When he's not stealing Americans' private information with DOGE, Kliger enjoys writing lengthy essays defending rapists and retweeting white supremacists," said the union's statement, citing the staffer's Substack where he has written positively about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), both accused of sexual abuse. "Kliger's lawyer daddy works at Experian, which is the same company CFPB sued in January for covering up errors on credit reports with sham investigations."

"CFPB Union members welcome our newest colleagues and look forward to the smell of Axe Body Spray in our elevators."

The union further mocked Kliger's "alleged" coding career and said that in contrast to the "zero to three git commits" he made in the last year, "workers at the CFPB returned $1.3 billion to scammed Americans in that time."

"CFPB Union members welcome our newest colleagues and look forward to the smell of Axe Body Spray in our elevators," said the workers.

"While acting Director [Scott] Bessent allows Musk's operatives to bypass cybersecurity policies and wreak havoc with their amateur code skills inside CFPB's once-secure systems, CFPB Union members fight to protect our jobs so we can continue protecting Americans from scammers with conflicts of interest like Musk," they said.

According to Wired's reporting:
In an email early Friday morning, CFPB staff were told that several people from DOGE—including [Rajpal, Kliger, and Young]—entered the agency building Thursday evening. The email stated that they would require access to CFPB data, systems, and equipment, following a message sent Thursday by CFPB chief operating officer Adam Martinez confirming that the DOGE employees were to receive "read-only access."

"DOGE arrived tonight and will be back tomorrow. They are going to need read-only access to our HR (HR Connect/NFC), procurement (PRISM), and finance (Discoverer) system," said Martinez. "I let them know that we utilize BFS/ARC so if they already have access, then they should be able to pull our data. Otherwise, if they do not have access to BFS/ARC, then we will need to work with them to fill out the necessary forms to gain access." BFS/ARC is the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's Administrative Resource Center, which provides administrative services, like timekeeping travel days or benefits, for a number of government agencies.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted that DOGE's targeting of the CFPB comes days after Trump dismissed former Director Rohit Chopra.



"American's financial privacy and safety [is] at risk as DOGE arrives at CFPB," said the Center for Digital Democracy, in response to various reporting. "The CFPB has saved American taxpapers and consumers billions... Undermining American financial security must be stopped."

In recent days, DOGE employees have arrived at the Departments of LaborEducation, and the Treasury, among other federal agencies, seizing access to data about millions of Americans, setting up illegal servers, and placing employees on administrative leave.


The White House and Musk have claimed the effort is aimed at reducing "waste" and improving "efficiency" within government, but comments from U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) this week signaled the administration is searching for ways to slash spending for numerous public services in the interest of extending the 2017 tax cuts for the wealthiest earners.

The union suggested Musk wants to take over the CFPB, which he called to "delete" late last year, to clear the way for a partnership between his social media platform, X, and Visa. The credit card company wants to offer payments on the platform, and "notably, the CFPB recently obtained the authority to supervise major payment apps," said the NTEU.


Earlier this week, DOGE staffers arrived at the Department of Labor, which has filed multiple complaints against Musk's companies.

"The world's richest man just dispatched his minions to root around the systems of a government watchdog responsible for policing payment schemes like the one just announced for his own company," Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director of the Demand Progress Education Fund, said in response to the union's account. "It sounds like the plot of a bad Bond movie but it's real and the American people are the real victims."

"Musk’s dreams of an 'everything app' that reaches into people's bank accounts paired with his sweeping, unchecked access to the levers of government opens up the potential for breathtaking corruption," said Peterson-Cassin. "His intrusion into CFPB systems also sends a clear message that he has no interest whatsoever in policing his own conflicts of interest. Musk must be stopped from dismantling the very mechanisms of the federal government that can prevent him from looting the American people."

Americans’ 'legally protected' info now 'exposed' as Trump budget chief gets new powers: union


Russell Vought, U.S. President Trump's nominee to be director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), testifies before a Senate Budget Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 22, 2025. REUTERS/Kaylee Greenlee Beal/File Photo


Carl Gibson
February 08, 2025
ALTERNET


One union representing workers at a federal watchdog agency is warning that President Donald Trump's new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director has unfettered access to millions of Americans' personal data.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Russell Vought — who the Senate confirmed this week to lead the OMB on a party-line vote — is now also the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). That news comes on the heels of centabillionaire Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency" (which is not yet a Congressionally authorized federal agency) sending its own representatives to the CFPB's headquarters and accessing its computers.

Vought and Musk have both publicly expressed a desire to cripple the administrative state. Vought previously said he wanted to put federal employees "in trauma" by systematically defunding federal agencies and making it financially impossible for workers to do their jobs. Musk tweeted "CFPB RIP" on Friday with a tombstone emoji.

READ MORE: 'Put them in trauma': Inside a key MAGA leader's plans for a new Trump agenda

The CFPB is specifically tasked with gathering complaints from consumers and businesses victimized by scams, who give the agency detailed information as part of the complaint process. But now that Vought in charge of the CFPB, the agency's union says its members are "deeply concerned that ... such legally-protected, sensitive data of businesses and individuals will be exposed and used in inappropriate ways."

Before putting Vought in charge of the CFPB, Trump fired Rohit Chopra, who was former President Joe Biden's pick to lead the agency. Under Chopra's leadership, the CFPB returned roughly $6 billion to Americans that had been scammed over the last four years, according to the Consumer Federation of America. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent instructed the agency to immediately cease its work after Chopra was fired.

Just days before Trump's second inauguration, the CFPB announced a $15 million settlement with credit bureau Equifax, who the agency said "failed to conduct adequate investigations of disputed information in credit reports."

"The CFPB found Equifax ignored consumer documents and evidence submitted with disputes, allowed previously deleted inaccuracies to be reinserted into credit reports, provided confusing and conflicting letters to consumers about the results of its investigations and used flawed software code which led to inaccurate consumer credit scores," a CFPB press release read. "The order requires Equifax to comply with federal law, and Equifax must pay a $15 million civil money penalty, which will be deposited into the CFPB’s victims relief fund."



What Do Trump’s Tariffs Really Mean for the US Working Class?


Trump’s challenge to the neoliberal order is aimed at increasing capitalists’ profits, not helping workers.
February 7, 2025

President Donald Trump arrives to sign an executive order in the East Room of the White House on February 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

Donald Trump’s first month in office has pummeled communities in the U.S. and across the globe with a whiplash-inducing set of illegal actions and rapid reversals. Trump’s latest about-face is on his long-promised tariffs. Shortly after announcing hefty new taxes on foreign imports, Trump placed the bulk of them on pause. For 30 days, the U.S. will delay implementing a 25 percent tariff on Mexico and Canada after the countries’ leaders agreed to boost security operations at the border. A 10 percent tax on goods from China, meanwhile, went into effect on February 4, leading China to retaliate with its own tariffs. Economists say U.S. consumers should expect to see price increases on things like imported cars, toys, clothing, home appliances, cellphones and computers.

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly denied that his tariff plan would lead to inflation. When ABC News asked him in September whether U.S. consumers could afford higher prices, Trump replied, “Who’s going to have higher prices is China, and all of the countries that have been ripping us off for years.”

Most economists, however, disagree. To help sift through fact and fiction, Truthout spoke with Robert Pollin, an economics professor and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.

Schuyler Mitchell: Let’s start with the fundamentals. What is a tariff? And if all of Trump’s tariffs do eventually take effect, what would be the immediate consequence for U.S. consumers?

Related Story
Trump said in a Truth Social post that his tariffs would be worth the “price that will be paid” by American consumers. By Chris Walker , Truthout February 3, 2025

Robert Pollin: The most immediate impact would be an increase in prices for U.S. consumers. A tariff is effectively a tax on imported goods, so if you have a tax on imported goods, somebody is going to cover those costs. You can claim that the costs will be paid by the producers in other countries, and that is formally true, but of course, the people paying the tariffs will aim to pass forward those costs, increasing the price to end up with the same net revenue.

For instance, say you’re selling knife sets at Walmart, and the knife sets cost $20, but now we have a 10 percent tariff. If the producers of the knife sets still sell them for $20, that cuts back their profit by 10 percent. They would have to pay $2 on each $20 knife set. So, instead, they would attempt to pass that cost forward by raising the price $2.

Trump has often said that China, Canada and Mexico are going to absorb these costs, not U.S. consumers. What is his support for this claim? Can you explain his reasoning?

Legally, yes, the burden falls on the seller — but of course everybody knows that’s not where things end. Where things end is where they try to pass on the cost. They may not succeed all the way. People may not be willing to pay the extra price, therefore the sellers would not try to raise it and would absorb the extra cost instead. That’s possible. But the more likely situation is that at least some significant share of that increased burden on the seller will be passed forward to the U.S. consumer.

Are there any historical precedents for tariffs of this magnitude, or any examples we can look to in history to see how something like this has played out in the past?


We have this far right, effective neofascist breaking down the neoliberal order.

Of course, there have been tariffs in the U.S. and elsewhere. The U.S. practiced tariffs pretty extensively in the late 18th century and 19th century. Tariff protection was how our textile mills got built: The idea was that the U.S. at the time was an underdeveloped country, and in order to develop it, the U.S. producers needed to be protected from foreign competition. Trump likes to invoke President William McKinley a lot, because in the late 19th century he imposed tariffs.

So, tariffs are a pretty common policy tool, but they were more frequently used in the U.S. economy in the 18th century to protect so-called infant industries and developing economies. That, I would argue, is the most credible, legitimate purpose for tariffs.

There’s not a lot of precedent recently. The more recent experience has been to eliminate tariffs and maintain relatively open trade borders. The era of neoliberalism has been characterized by globalization and the opening up of the U.S. economy to encourage free trade between countries. That was the idea, at least in principle, behind NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I’d love to talk some more about NAFTA and how we got to this moment. What has been the Democrats’ role in all of this? Why was Trump able to successfully step in and pitch himself as an economic populist during this last election cycle, even though it’s far from the truth?

We’re not talking about just one election. We’re really talking about the emergence of neoliberalism effectively over 50 years now, from the late 1970s, beginning with Jimmy Carter’s presidency, and moving into the Reagan and first Bush administrations. But NAFTA was enacted under Bill Clinton. It never would’ve been enacted if it had been a Republican president at the time — the Democrats would have opposed it.

That was a critical turning point. The idea then was that the Democrats were the party of free trade. But the result is that low-wage competition has contributed to keeping workers’ wages down in the U.S.

Let’s say manufacturing workers in the U.S. want to bargain for a wage increase. The capitalist now has increased credibility to say, “Oh, you want a raise? Well, I’ll relocate the plant to Mexico, where the wages are just 10 percent of what you make.” That kind of scenario acted itself out over 35, 40 years. The result is that the average worker’s wage in the United States, controlled for inflation, is today what it was in the early 1970s. There has not been a real wage increase from 50 years ago to today, even though the productivity — the amount a worker makes over the course of the day — has gone up two and a half times. That increase in productivity has been channeled instead into the incomes of capitalists and high-wage people. In the 1970s, the average CEO made about 15 times more than the average worker. Now, the average CEO makes about 300 times more than the average worker. That has been the experience of neoliberalism.

To their credit, I would argue that the Biden administration did take modest steps to reverse this trajectory. There was progress, but not nearly enough, and certainly they did not know how to communicate it. Meanwhile, Trump comes in with his whole bluster about how he’s a tough guy, everyone’s going to bow down to him, he’s going to help out the workers — and obviously it did break through. The Democrats are now portrayed as the party of middle-class professionals and people with advanced degrees.

In your analysis, what does it mean that Trump is the one enacting these tariffs, and what does that say about the current state of neoliberalism?

Well, it’s ironic in a sense that we have this far right, effective neofascist breaking down the neoliberal order. Neoliberalism, again, in principle would always favor relatively open borders and free trade. The question then is, if that characterizes neoliberalism and we don’t like neoliberalism, then why don’t we have a favorable attitude towards Trump’s tariff policies? That gets you into class analysis.

The question isn’t so much whether there are tariffs or not tariffs, but who’s benefiting from these tariffs. Of course, when Trump ran for office, he said he was for the workers and that the Democrats had abandoned them. I think it’s a fair argument to say the Democrats have, for a generation or two generations, abandoned the U.S. working class — not entirely, but significantly. We see that in terms of basic measures like income distribution and wages.

But are Trump’s policies a way to support workers? No, that’s not the case. Trump’s purpose in enacting tariffs is to defend a certain segment of the U.S. capitalist class, not the working class. That is very distinct from an argument against neoliberalism, in that neoliberalism was never so much an agenda for economic free trade as it was a very aggressive pro-capitalist approach to economic policy. Trump’s approach is also aggressively pro-capitalist, but it’s pro-capitalist within a framework of restricting trade, restricting immigration and establishing an environment in which domestic U.S. capitalists will not face challenges from foreign capitalists.

Can you talk a little bit more about why Trump’s policies don’t actually have working-class interests at heart?

Ultimately, the things that help American workers are redistributive policies that limit the power and income of capital, and labor market policies that promote unionization and enable workers to organize and bargain effectively on their own behalf. Trump, of course, favors none of these. His core agenda is going to be to lower taxes on high-income people, lower taxes on corporations and eliminate regulations. All of those things are going to not only increase income for capitalists and high-income people, but also increase their bargaining power relative to workers.

This is not a pro-worker agenda. It is an agenda that is pro-capitalist, but within a more nationalist framework than what has been true under neoliberalism. One could make the argument that limiting foreign competition and limiting the inflow of cheap imports is going to improve conditions for U.S. workers. That is conceivable, but it’s the full package of policies that establishes the relative well-being of workers. It’s not just tariffs. So, if on the one hand you’re saying, “We’re going to set up tariff barriers and limit access to the U.S. market, and U.S. workers will do better,” but on the other hand you’re saying, “We’re aggressively anti-union. We’re going to lower taxes on high-income people and cut our government programs that support working people and redistribute income downward” — that definitely is not a pro-worker agenda.


Trump’s purpose in enacting tariffs is to defend a certain segment of the U.S. capitalist class, not the working class.

What would the ideal way forward be on an economic level to support actual working-class interests? Is there a way in which tariffs could be a piece of that puzzle, in conjunction with other things, or are these sorts of tariffs detrimental regardless?

Tariffs should be understood as just one policy tool within a much broader package. Even within relations between countries, tariffs are not the only policy tool that one can use. For example, the Biden administration enacted pretty aggressive industrial policies to promote U.S. manufacturing, green investments and green industries. Those weren’t tariffs, but they were subsidies for U.S. producers. Some of this was scaled back — the Inflation Reduction Act was a scaled-back version of the Build Back Better proposal that the Biden administration initially proposed — but part of it required companies to pay decent wages and hire and train apprentice workers if they wanted to receive subsidies. So, that is another mode of addressing issues between the U.S. and other trading partners. Nothing has been formally nixed since Trump came in, but that is likely coming soon.

When we talk about tariffs as a policy within the U.S., we’re also thinking of this pretty narrowly. The U.S. isn’t the only country in the world. Do we in the U.S. only care about the U.S.? It’s true that the U.S. market has been massively beneficial to China, for example, and its development. China has succeeded miraculously since the neoliberal era. Allowing other countries to sell in the U.S. market has contributed to reducing global poverty. So, is it always a zero-sum game? If China or Mexico or Vietnam sell in the U.S., does that necessarily mean it’s going to be bad news for U.S. workers? No, not necessarily — as long as we have other policies that protect the well-being of workers, such as strong union rights, high minimum wage laws, decent living standards, and so forth.

Trump’s tariff tactics may reshape global trade: analysts


By AFP
February 10, 2025


US President Donald Trump sees tariffs as a means to raise revenue, remedy trade imbalances and push countries to act on US concerns 
- Copyright AFP/File ROBERTO SCHMIDT

Beiyi SEOW

US President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs as a blunt weapon to extract concessions on everything from commerce to immigration and drug trafficking could redraw global trading norms, analysts say.

Since his inauguration on January 20, Trump has unveiled and paused blanket tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods over migration and illegal fentanyl, and hiked duties on Chinese imports in the same breath, triggering retaliation.

And on Monday he imposed sweeping steel and aluminum levies, drawing comparisons to his first term when he imposed duties across both sectors before allowing exemptions.

Trump sees tariffs as a way to raise revenue, remedy trade imbalances and pressure countries to act on US concerns.

But “the degree of uncertainty about trade policy has basically exploded,” said Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Analysts can try to predict where tariffs might be imposed based on economic variables, he told AFP, but basing trade policy on non-economic objectives could throw things into a tailspin.

Trump’s tactics could lead to a “retraction of global supply chains,” he warned, or countries seeking to decouple from the US market if risk levels are deemed too high.



– Broader scale –



Already, the scale of Trump’s tariff threat is larger than before.

While he imposed sweeping duties on steel and aluminum imports previously, alongside levies on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese products, he has now threatened all US partners.

Trump has vowed “reciprocal tariffs” to match levies that other governments charge on US goods, and ordered a review of US trade deficits by April 1.

US officials are to recommend measures such as a global supplemental tariff to remedy deficits.

Across-the-board duties, if imposed, could affect more than $3 trillion in imported goods.

But Trump’s reasons for levies on Canada and Mexico — as well as a lower additional rate on China — go beyond trade.

“It’s not a tariff per se, it is an action of domestic policy,” Trump’s commerce secretary nominee Howard Lutnick told lawmakers at his confirmation hearing last month.

“I don’t think anyone should be surprised about these tariffs or tariff threats,” said Christine McDaniel, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center.

Trump “has been very clear that he sees them as an important tool in his toolkit,” added McDaniel, a former official in George W. Bush’s administration. “He views this as as much of a negotiating tool, as he does in trying to balance trade.”



– ‘Upsetting the applecart’ –



Stephen Moore, a longtime external Trump advisor, sees tariffs as a way to “incentivize” countries to act in US interests, saying that partners like Canada, Mexico and China risk bigger losses economically than the United States.

While he believes Trump’s approach has been effective, he conceded it could be dangerous if it triggered escalating trade tensions with partners like Canada.

Similarly, Washington would want a “strong and stable economy in Mexico,” added Moore, a senior visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that Trump’s tariffs could backfire.

Besides threatening tit-for-tat tariffs, Canadians also offered a “cultural response,” with people booing the US national anthem at sporting events, she said.

“This is really damaging the United States’ reputation, and I think that’s something we need to be concerned about in the long term,” she said.

To McDaniel, the risk of unilateral tariffs may upend global trade.

“What is the use of WTO membership when one of the biggest countries in the world can threaten tariffs for national security reasons in such an aggressive way?” she asked, referring to the World Trade Organization.

“It’s definitely upsetting the applecart in terms of how we’ve been thinking about the role of international trade institutions, international trade rules and trade agreements,” she said.

Steel at heart of new Trump trade war


By AFP
February 10, 2025


Steel is the industry which emits the largest quantities of planet-warming greenhouse gases - Copyright AFP/File

 Drew ANGERER
Isabel MALSANG

US President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on steel promise to further complicate a strategic industry already destabilised by Chinese overproduction and Europe’s stuttering blast furnaces.

Recently returned to the White House, the mercurial Republican’s long-promised trade war will on Monday forge a new front with an expected 25-percent levy on aluminium and steel imported into the United States.

Trump imposed similar tariffs during his first term of office to protect US producers faced with what he complained to be unfair competition.

Who exports steel to the US?


Global steel production hit 1.89 billion tonnes in 2023, according to the latest figures from trade body World Steel.

World leader China’s 1.02 billion tonnes represents more than half of that tally, with the United States trailing far behind on 81 million.

The United States meanwhile imported 26.4 million tonnes of the alloy in 2023, making it the second-largest market for foreign steel behind the European Union.

Canada tops the list of Washington’s favoured steel providers with the United States importing 5.95 million tonnes from its northern neighbour in 2024, according to the US Department of Commerce.

Brazil and the EU followed with 4.08 million and 3.89 million tonnes exported to the United States respectively, ahead of Mexico on 3.19 million and South Korea on 2.5 million.

China however exported only around 470,000 tonnes to the United States.

Why is Trump complaining?


Global overproduction of the alloy has caused steel prices to plummet in the past year.

Where the steel economy of the past half-century cycled through periods of shortage and plenty, today it faces a structural problem of too much steel being produced, experts say.

That steel surplus varies around half a billion tonnes, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

“The majority comes from China which is flooding the world markets,” a European steel industry figure told AFP on condition of remaining anonymous.

Historically, European and US production capacity was on the whole balanced and in tune with domestic needs, the source said.

“But in southeast Asia (production) far exceeds demand”.

And new planned steel factories in the region should add another 100 million tonnes of production capacity — “80 percent of which comes from Chinese players” — on top of the existing surplus, they added.

Moreover, Beijing has long been suspected of indirectly subsidising its steel production, driving down prices and putting the traditional European and US players on the back foot.

As a result under-fire US Steel has been the subject of a takeover bid by Japanese rival Nippon Steel, which was blocked by then-president Joe Biden.

With low prices squeezing profits, Germany’s ThyssenKrupp announced it will lay off thousands of people working at its furnaces.

Why does steel matter?


Steel, so key to the second industrial revolution of the late 19th and early 20th century, remains a strategic industry around the world.

It is the foundational girder on which many traditional industrial sectors rest.

Just over half of the steel produced in 2023 was still destined for construction, while 12 percent of the rest went to automobile manufacturers.

Weapons manufacturers, railways and other transport sectors likewise feature among the alloy’s top consumers.

But its use in wind turbines means steel is likewise essential for the transition to renewable energy.

It is also necessary to build the data centres used to house the vast quantities of information key to the development of artificial intelligence.

– Does green steel exist? –


The manufacturing process, which involves burning coal to smelt steel from iron ore, makes the industry largest emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Some steel furnaces have attempted to limit their environmental impact by recycling more scrap metal, switching to electric furnaces or building gas and hydrogen installations to phase out the use of highly polluting coal.

In Europe in particular vast sums of money were planned to be poured into decarbonising the industry.

But those investments have currently been put on ice due to Trump’s looming threat of a trade war, the global surplus and the continent’s declining steel consumption.






Ukraine NGOs, veterans scramble for funding after US aid freeze


By AFP
February 8, 2025


US President Donald Trump has called for the closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) - Copyright AFP Mandel NGAN


Florent VERGNES

Mykhailo received a flurry of messages when US President Donald Trump suspended international aid, a move that endangered the NGO where he works helping Ukrainian veterans.

In January, Trump ordered the suspension of foreign assistance. Then on Friday he called for the closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which distributes US humanitarian aid globally.

His billionaire ally Elon Musk boasted Trump’s team was putting USAID “through the wood-chipper”.

The move sent shock waves through Ukraine, USAID’s largest beneficiary having received nearly $38 billion in donations since Russia invaded in February 2022.

“When the aid was suspended, people wrote to me saying: ‘Where are we meant to go?'” said Mykhailo, a case manager at the Veteran Hub NGO. He himself has used the psychological support services it offers former combatants and their families.

He spoke to AFP in the city of Vinnytsia, 250 kilometres (155 miles) from Kyiv, at a regional office of the Veteran Hub.

One veteran was slumped on a chair, his face sombre, as he waited for an appointment with a psychologist helping him with the suffering caused by nearly three years of war.

But the former soldier may soon be left alone with his trauma, along with the 800 other veterans who use the hub’s services.

Some of the beneficiaries who got in touch with Mykhailo have launched their own fundraising drive.

The hub has already had to close for a week due to the abrupt suspension of US aid on January 27. It was only temporary local funding that allowed it to reopen.



– Fear of reprisals –



Trump has ordered aid suspended for at least 90 days, during which time USAID’s activities will be audited.

Most NGOs have chosen to await the outcome of the audit and keep silent, rather than risk the wrath of the US administration by criticising it.

Veteran Hub was an exception.

“We were confused and shocked… but we started looking for a solution immediately,” said the head of the Vinnytsia branch, Anastasiya Bunych.

The staff quickly took to social media to publicise the consequences of the aid freeze, calling on the private sector and Ukrainian authorities to come to the rescue.

The strategy brought some temporary relief, with Vinnytsia city council allocating it 105,000 euros ($108,000) for three months.

The young employees of Veteran Hub, who narrowly escaped unemployment, proudly wear badges saying they “preserved their mental health in times of crisis”.

This is a huge challenge, given that a study published in the medical journal The Lancet found “dramatically high levels” of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among adults in Ukraine.

The study also found 1.2 million current veterans would need help to return to civilian life, rising to an estimated 5 million in the longer term.

Helping veterans make that adjustment is a core part of Veteran Hub’s work.

Given the challenge, Bunych said she is looking for “a new long-term donor” as she does not believe that USAID will restart its funding.



– ‘Epidemic’ risk –



Hopes for a resumption of US support were also slim at the Svitanok (Dawn) Club, an NGO offering a safe haven to marginalised people in the eastern Donetsk region, torn apart by over ten years of conflict.

The NGO’s offices in Kramatorsk, a city located about 20 km (12 miles) from the eastern front line, had been providing sexual health services and helping people suffering from drug addiction.

Visitors could even come by to drink tea and use washing machines supplied by USAID, a donor that was “flexible and attentive” according to the director, Nataliya Bezeleva.

But shortages are now looming, especially for emergency humanitarian aid and medical tests.

“This could trigger a new wave of the AIDS epidemic,” Bezeleva said, adding that the Donetsk region’s health system, decimated by years of war, “won’t be able to get back on its feet without aid”.

She said she was already seeking additional Ukrainian government funding. The USAID audit will be “carried out by people who don’t understand what is going on”, she said — at a time when the Trump administration is cutting access to sexual and reproductive healthcare.

She acknowledged USAID had flaws. “But (Trump) threw the baby out with the bathwater,” she said.

Whatever happens, she is determined to keep her staff, many of them veterans and people who had fled the eastern city of Donetsk, now in Russian hands.

“We are going to reduce salaries (and) transfer people to other projects,” she said.

“Our biggest problem is our Russian neighbour. As for everything else, we will manage.”

Iran president says Trump aiming to bring country ‘to its knees’


By  AFP
February 10, 2025


People gathered across Iran to mark the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution - Copyright${image.metadata.node.creator}


Majid Sourati and Ahmad Parhizi

Iran’s president accused his US counterpart Donald Trump on Monday of seeking to bring the Islamic republic “to its knees” as the country marked the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah.

The revolution removed a pro-US government in Iran, and the subsequent hostage-taking of American diplomats in Tehran ushered in decades of hostility between the United States and Iran.

This year’s celebrations carry additional weight following Trump’s return to the White House. During his first term, Trump he pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” against the Islamic republic.

In the morning, people gathered in public spaces across Iran, accompanied by pop songs and patriotic ballads, to celebrate the anniversary of the overthrow of shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

In Tehran, they headed to the symbolic Azadi tower, whose name means “freedom” in Persian, and which is in a square formerly named in honour of the shah.

“Trump says, ‘we want to talk’, and… (then) he signs in a memorandum all the conspiracies to bring our revolution to its knees,” Pezeshkian told the crowd, referring to Trump’s reinstatement of sanctions against Tehran earlier this month.

“We are not looking for war,” he said, while adding that Iran “will never bow to foreigners”.

Chanting anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans, crowds formed Monday in the streets of Shiraz and Bandar Abbas in the south, Rasht in the north, Kermanshah and Sanandaj in the west, and the holy city of Mashhad in the east, according to images broadcast on television.

Attendees, many of them families, carried portraits of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the green, red and white flag of Iran, as well as the banners of Tehran-backed groups such as Hezbollah.

Iranian-made missile replicas and military equipment were on display, drawing crowds of families.



– ‘You can’t trust America!’ –



Children, draped in Iran’s flag, clambered over an air defence system, and some people carried portraits of Khamenei.

“Negotiating with the United States is pointless because they lie,” said Parvaneh Samakhani, a 52-year-old teacher.

During his first term, which ended in 2021, Trump had pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” against Iran, an approach he has restored since returning to office.

Trump pulled Washington out of the 2015 nuclear deal, torpedoing an agreement that had gave Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic programme.

As he signed the order instructing US departments to design new sanctions against Iran on February 4, Trump voiced optimism for a “deal with Iran and everybody can live together”.

The US president also warned that if he were assassinated by Iran, the country would be “obliterated”.

“Iran made many concessions, but then Trump came and tore up the deal,” said Samakhani, dressed in a black chador.

“You can’t trust America!” she said, as some waved caricatures of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

With Trump’s return to office, “history is repeating itself,” said Mehdi Sajadfar, a 24-year-old shopkeeper.

“Everything is a lie” when it comes to the United States, he added, as demonstrators chanted “Death to America”.

In his speech, Pezeshkian said the United States sought to weaken Iran by sowing “division”.

“If we join hands, we are capable of resolving all the country’s problems,” said the Iranian president.

Iran’s 10-day celebrations marking the ouster of the shah start each year on January 31, the anniversary of the return to Tehran of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 from exile.

Iranian officials had urged citizens to attend the festivities in large numbers after Trump’s sanctions announcement.



Musk risks putting EU buyers off Tesla: analysts

...the deadlock around Swedish Tesla employees who have been on strike for more than a year demanding better wages and work conditions, as well as Musk’s recent actions “make everyone else see red”


By AFP
February 9, 2025


A Tesla car stands in front of the company's electric car plant in Gruenheide near Berlin, Germany, on March 13, 2024 - Copyright AFP


 Odd ANDERSEN

Elon Musk’s rapprochement with US President Donald Trump, his backing of European far-right parties and attacks on diversity policies could drive European buyers away from Tesla, analysts say.

In both Germany and France, sales of the electric pioneer’s cars were halved year-on-year in January 2025, while a series of isolated incidents targeting Tesla have set off alarm bells among buyers and industry analysts alike.

“Nobody wants to be associated with Musk’s behaviour,” said German automotive industry expert Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer.

Yet the brand and its boss are “almost inseparable”, he added.

The backlash has been particularly strong in Germany, where Musk has voiced firm support for the far-right AfD party — a political taboo in a country where the Nazi past remains a sensitive subject.

Stickers bearing the message “I bought this car before Elon went crazy” started showing up on German Tesla cars, as they had in the United States.


Elon Musk’s actions could deter Europeans from buying Teslas, analysts say
 – Copyright POOL/AFP Chip Somodevilla

Musk, the world’s richest man, also drew uproar with a gesture at a Trump rally critics likened to a Nazi salute — allegations which the Tesla boss has rejected.

At the end of January, activists projected a giant image of Musk’s gesture and the word “Heil” onto the outside of a Tesla plant near Berlin.

“Germany remains very sensitive to its history and Musk’s political rhetoric is potentially toxic, given that Tesla consumers are partly motivated by environmental concerns,” said German automotive analyst Matthias Schmidt.

– Think carefully –

“The car is good,” 60-year-old Enrico Parano said about his Tesla.

But the Frankfurt-based banking executive said he would think “very carefully before buying it (today) because of Musk’s behaviour”, and that he was considering selling his Tesla shares.

“It’s scary to give money to this guy,” said Adriaan, a young French doctor who bought his Tesla second-hand.

He said he feared, however, an environmental catastrophe if the world put the brakes on the transition to electric vehicles.

Other incidents targeting the Tesla brand or its owner, now a close adviser of Trump, have taken place outside Germany.

In the Netherlands, a Tesla showroom was vandalised with swastika graffiti and anti-fascist slogans in early February, according to media outlet Dutch News.

In Poland, Tourism Minister Slawomir Nitras said it was “necessary to respond firmly” to Musk, hinting at a possible boycott.

– Fans in their 30s –

Any boycott’s impact would be hard to measure as Tesla has already been hampered by a number of obstacles in the European Union.

Tesla’s range of vehicles is ageing and the brand has been faced with an avalanche of competing models overcrowding a slowing market.

Tesla declined to comment on the situation.

Its global sales, however, remained stable last year and since Trump’s election, company shares have climbed to a record high.

“Tesla today is two sides of the same coin,” said Ieva Englund of Swedish institute Novus, which conducted an online survey at the end of January.

Englund said half of the Swedish population was either positive or neutral toward the brand, praising its innovative feat and environmental impact.

Men aged between 35 and 49 years old, which Englund said could be considered as Tesla’s main target group, remain “relatively positive” toward the brand.

But the deadlock around Swedish Tesla employees who have been on strike for more than a year demanding better wages and work conditions, as well as Musk’s recent actions “make everyone else see red”, she said.

Sweden’s police struggle to find motive for mass shooting


By AFP
February 9, 2025


Five days after the deadliest mass shooting in its history, Sweden is still in mourning - Copyright AFP 

Armend NIMANI

Swedish police said Sunday they were still struggling to establish the motive of the man behind the Scandinavian country’s worst mass shooting, five days after the tragedy.

A gunman killed 10 people on Tuesday after entering the Campus Risbergska, an educational centre for young adults in the town of Orebro, 200 kilometres (125 miles) west of Stockholm.

He is thought to have acted alone before apparently turning the gun on himself.

While police confirmed the gunman was a former student at Risbergska, Orebro police commander Henrik Dahlstrom acknowledged that what had sparked the killing spree was still unknown.

“We cannot for the moment establish that a clear motive exists,” Dahlstrom told journalists Sunday.

“We are working to see if there is one and what it might be.”

The shooter has been identified by the Swedish media as Rickard Andersson, a 35-year-old unemployed recluse with psychological problems.

“Sweden is a country in mourning,” Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said in a televised address Sunday.

“At this moment, we are being put to the test. Each in our own way, but also as a country.”

The attack had provoked fear and concern among the population, he added.



– ‘Not us and them’ –



Dahlstrom said that had it not been for the swift intervention of the police, the toll could have been higher.

Police have previously said they faced “an inferno” when officers arrived at the scene of the killing spree.

Officers found three weapons found next to the suspect’s body, along with “a great deal of shell casings” and unused ammunition.

The gunman killed seven women and three men aged between 28 and 68. All lived in Orebro but were of “multiple nationalities”, investigators have confirmed.

“They came from different parts of the world and had different dreams,” Kristersson said.

“They were at school to lay the foundations for a future that has now been taken away from them.”

Syria’s embassy in Stockholm has expressed condolences to two Syrian families, without giving details.

Bosnia’s foreign ministry said one of its nationals was among the dead, while another had been wounded.

Kristersson, who urged people not to speculate on the attacker’s motives, stressed that he understood the concerns of “people of foreign origin who show a particular sense of vulnerability”.

However, “there is only one Sweden. Not us and them. Not young or old. Not born here or born abroad”, he added.

Kristersson’s government is backed by the far-right on the basis of a programme calling for a sharp reduction in immigration.

SVT public broadcaster analyst Mats Knutson said “if it turns out that racist motives were behind this murder, it will trigger a very lively debate on the change of tone and rhetoric in Swedish political debate, particularly on the issue of immigration”.




Nestle share slump adds pressure on new boss



By AFP
February 10, 2025


Nestle has faced a spate of food and water scandals - Copyright AFP STR

Nestle’s slumping share price is rattling shareholders and pension funds that have invested in the food giant, piling pressure on its new boss ahead of Thursday’s annual results.

Chief executive Laurent Freixe took over in September in a surprise change at the top of the Swiss group, whose brands include everything from Nespresso coffee capsules to Purina dog food and Maggi stock cubes.

A company veteran who headed the Latin America division before his promotion, Freixe was given the task of reviving Nestle sales, which have yet to fully recover from a wave of inflation that prompted consumers to slash spending.

Sales totalled 93 billion Swiss francs ($102 billions at current rates) in 2023, falling 1.5 percent from the previous year.

The group has also faced scandals in Switzerland and France over the use of banned filtering systems for its mineral waters, and the deaths of two children who had consumed Buitoni pizzas suspected of being contaminated with E.coli.

In November, Freixe unveiled a plan combining new cost-cutting measures, increased advertising spending with a focus on the brand’s top-selling products, and a reshuffle of its water business.

Despite these measures, the share price continued to fall, shedding nearly a quarter of its value in 2024.

As a result, Nestle lost its leading position on the Swiss stock exchange, dropping to third place behind pharmaceutical giants Roche and Novartis.

At the start of February, shares were trading at around 77 and 78 Swiss francs, a significant drop from its peak of nearly 130 francs at the end of 2021.

In Switzerland, the NZZ daily newspaper warned that many Swiss citizens were affected given Nestle’s weight in pension fund investment.

For daily newspaper Tages-Anzeiger, the stock can no longer be considered a “Grossmutter-Aktie” (German for grandmother stock), referring to stable, long-term investment stock suitable for risk-averse investors.

The newspaper also reported that shareholders could end up calling Nestle’s board to account.



– Too early –



“Nestle is owned by a large number of pension funds and private individuals in Switzerland,” said Jean-Philippe Bertschy, an analyst at Vontobel.

“Sentiment around the stock has rarely been worse as investors are rightly disappointed with the share price performance,” Bertschy wrote in a recent study.

Several factors have contributed to the stock’s plunge, he said, including repeated changes in management, downward revisions of sales forecasts, and the pizza and water scandals in France.

But “numerous opportunities remain to restore sales growth and generate cash” given the extent of Nestle’s portfolio, Bertschy wrote, adding that the turnaround of underperforming businesses or brands “will take time.”



– “Marques milliardaires” –



Shortly after taking over, Freixe said he wanted to focus on Nestle’s highest-potential products, including the company’s “31 billionaire brands”, or those with annual sales exceeding one billion francs, such as Nespresso, KitKat or Purina One.

He also initiated a reorganisation of Nestle’s water business, which was regrouped into a separate entity at the beginning of January.

Many analysts interpreted the move as a sign that Nestle could either partially divest through a partnership — as the group had already done in 2016 with its ice cream operations — or sell.

Andreas von Arx, analyst at Baader Helvea, expects investors to focus on forecasts when Freixe presents the annual results on Thursday.

“It is too early to see progress on the topline,” von Arx said.

Freixe has remained vague about his expectations for 2025.

Last year, the Nestle chief executive had said he expected organic sales growth of around two percent, followed by an “improvement” in 2025, without providing more specific figures.

Read more: https://www.digitaljournal.com/business/nestle-share-slump-adds-pressure-on-new-boss/article#ixzz8zwS6Xkt1