Friday, March 28, 2025

WAR CRIME

Signal Chat Caught Trump Officials Cheering Destruction Of Entire Building To Kill 1 Man

S.V. Date
Wed, March 26, 2025 

Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe (L) testifies during an annual worldwide threats assessment hearing at the Longworth House Office Building on March 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s top national security officials Wednesday defended their use of an unsecure messaging app to share details of a military strike on Yemen — as well as their cheers for the destruction of an entire building in their efforts to kill a single suspected Houthi terrorist.

“Building collapsed,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote shortly after the March 15 air strikes began in a group chat on Signal that inadvertently included a journalist. “The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and now it’s collapsed.”

“Excellent,” Vice President JD Vance wrote in response.

National security adviser Mike Waltz, who had invited Atlantic editor and longtime national security reporter Jeffrey Goldberg to the group chat days earlier, responded with emojis of a fist, an American flag and a flame.

It’s unclear how big the building destroyed in the effort to kill a single targeted terrorist was, or how many civilians were killed and injured in that particular strike. Neither the White House nor the Department of Defense responded to HuffPost queries on the matter.

Houthi leaders claimed that 53 people, including five children, were killed in the air strikes, which included missiles from Navy fighter planes, sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and armed drones.

A top national security official from the preceding Joe Biden administration said that avoiding civilian deaths and injuries was always a factor when deciding whether to conduct military strikes against the Iran-backed Houthis as well as other targets.

“It was always a consideration. Always,” the former official said on condition of anonymity. “And we would not take a strike if the possibility of civcas [civilian casualties] could not be mitigated.”

Beyond the ethical issue of killing uninvolved civilians, Biden officials frequently argued, was the pragmatic one: Killing and injuring non-combatants creates hostility toward the United States and leads to the recruitment of even more terrorists within a short period of time.

The Biden official also said that, contrary to Trump administration claims, the new operations are basically the same strikes against the same set of targets. Trump administration officials have claimed their new effort was a dramatic change from what took place under the Biden administration and would result in the end of attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea.

“No substantive difference,” the official said. “We hit military targets, weapons caches, launch sites, radar. The whole apparatus was put in place under our watch.”

The March 15 strikes have not had any noticeable effect on bringing shipping traffic back through the Red Sea, and experts believe it would take months or even longer for that to happen.

Trump and his aides, nevertheless, continued to claim Wednesday that their actions, unlike those under Biden, have been a tremendous success. “They have been hit harder than they’ve ever been hit,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “The attacks have been very successful even beyond our wildest expectations.”

“Our ongoing campaign against the Houthis has been devastatingly effective,” Hegseth told reporters at an event in Hawaii.

Neither Hegseth nor others, though, would answer basic questions about the group chat, including why Signal was used despite specific guidance from the intelligence community that it be avoided for nonpublic information.

The Atlantic on Wednesday released screenshots of the entire chat — with the exception of the name of a CIA officer who participated — after Trump and advisers repeatedly claimed Tuesday that no “war plans” were shared nor was any classified information revealed. Those screenshots showed that Hegseth at first gave the 16 other Trump officials on the chat (and Goldberg) a detailed timeline of the impending attack, including which planes would be used and what time they would launch from an aircraft carrier.

He then gave details on how the attack was going in real time — including information about the targeted suspected terrorist that provided hints as to how that intelligence was gathered. Further, had the timeline been available to Houthi fighters when it was made available to Goldberg, it could have endangered the lives of the air crews taking part in the raid.

Trump officials across the administration refused to answer HuffPost queries on what sorts of devices — computers versus phones; government-issued versus personal — the various participants had used to log onto the Signal chat. CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified in the Senate on Tuesday that Signal was loaded onto his work computer, but he did not say how he participated in the group chat.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday testified to House members that Signal comes “pre-installed” on government devices — which, if correct, represents a completely new policy. The app had been prohibited on government devices under the Biden administration.

Trump aide Steve Witkoff may have shed some light on the device issue Wednesday when he posted on social media that the only device he took with him on a trip to Russia two weeks ago was one issued by the U.S. government, which was the reason he did not participate in the group chat as the military strikes were taking place. “Guess why? Because I had no access to my personal devices until I returned from my trip,” he wrote, suggesting that when he finally did join the chat after the raid ended — he texted emoji of two sets of praying hands, a flexed bicep and two American flags — it was from his personal phone.

Experts: Leaked Messages Show Waltz Admitting to War Crime in Yemen Strike

J.D. Vance said it was “excellent” that a strike collapsed a building. Thirteen civilians died, according to one count.
March 26, 2025
President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz (right), takes a question from a reporter during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (left) in the Oval Office of the White House on March 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Andrew Harnik / Getty Images


Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

Trump administration officials effectively admitted to and celebrated a war crime when discussing the U.S.’s airstrikes on Yemen earlier this month, a House Democrat and policy experts have said, citing newly leaked messages published by The Atlantic.

On Wednesday, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published a full group chat exchange he had previewed in an article on Monday, in which numerous high-level officials coordinated and discussed the U.S.’s airstrikes on Yemen earlier this month. Wednesday’s exposé came as a response to Trump officials insisting that classified information was not shared in the chat — despite the messages including what are clearly secretive high-level discussions on war plans.

“Another disgusting part of all of this is the proof [of] a blatant war crime to which the Vice President of the United States responded: Excellent,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost, a Democrat from Florida, on social media on Wednesday.

In an exchange after the strikes first hit, as shown in Wednesday’s leak, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz says that the U.S. had collapsed a building that one of their Houthi targets was supposedly inside, calling it “amazing.”

“Their first target — their top missile guy — we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and now it’s collapsed,” Waltz said.


Tlaib: Democrats Rage Over Yemen Strike Leak, But Not at the Strike Itself
The US’s airstrikes on Yemen have reportedly killed dozens of civilians, with the US twice bombing a cancer hospital. By Sharon Zhang , Truthout  March 25, 2025


Per the screenshots, Vice President J.D. Vance responds, “Excellent.” CIA Director John Ratcliffe says, “A good start.” Waltz then replies with a fist emoji, a U.S. flag emoji and a flame emoji.

According to Yemen Data Project, the first strike killed at least 13 civilians and injured nine on the night of March 15, hitting north of the capital, Sanaa. Yemen Data Project says that this was the bombing deemed “excellent” by the vice president and “amazing” by Waltz.

The messages are “prima facie evidence of at least one war crime applauded by the people who conspired to commit it,” wrote Dylan Williams, Vice President for Government Affairs for the Center for International Policy (CIP), on social media.

“Rules of engagement that permit destroying an entire civilian apartment building to kill one alleged terrorist is part of Joe Biden’s legacy,” wrote Matt Duss, CIP’s executive vice president. “It’s still a war crime though, and Waltz’s text is a confession.”

International law mandates that combatants must not deliberately target civilians in war, and that they must avoid targeting civilian infrastructure even if there is a military objective. Houthi officials have condemned the U.S’s recent attacks as a war crime. Progressive lawmakers have noted that the U.S. has been bombing Yemen for a decade despite Congress having never formally declared war, making the aggression unconstitutional as well.

The U.S. launched over 47 air strikes on Yemen between March 15 and 16. Yemenis reported numerous strikes on residential buildings. In the Ibb governorate, the U.S. targeted two residential buildings, killing at least 15, per Al Jazeera, while 15 others were killed when the U.S. struck a residential area in the capital.

The bombings killed 53 people in total. At least 25 of them were civilians, per Yemen Data Project, including four children; Yemeni officials have counted more than 30 civilian deaths. The majority of strikes targeted civilian sites, Yemen Data Project said — including a strike on a newly built cancer hospital that the U.S. bombed once again this week.

Drop Site reported that the bombing of the hospital threw the facility into chaos, with children screaming due to their injuries, while some “small victims were charred beyond recognition.” The U.S.’s strikes on the hospital this week have reportedly destroyed the facility.

Rubio vows to keep stripping visas after furor over snatched student

GAZA PRO PEACE CEASFIRE  ACTIVISTS ARE NOT ANTI SEMITIC AND THEIR PROTESTS ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (THATS THE ONE THAT  COMES BEFORE THE SECOND  AMENDMENT)

Georgetown (Guyana) (AFP) – US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday he has canceled more than 300 visas in a crackdown on anti-Israel activism and vowed to keep doing so, brushing aside furor after masked agents snatched a student.

28/03/2025 - RFI
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with reporters on his plane while flying from Suriname en route to Miami © Nathan Howard / POOL/AFP

Rubio, a staunch supporter of Israel, said that he personally signed off on every visa revocation and rejected charges he was violating US protections of free speech.

Asked about a report on the number of visas he has stripped, mostly for students, Rubio said: "Maybe more than 300 at this point. We do it every day."

"Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," he told reporters on a visit to Guyana.

"At some point I hope we run out because we've gotten rid of them," Rubio said.




Since his return to the White House on January 20, President Donald Trump has moved aggressively against student activists and universities over the disruptive protests that swept US colleges campuses in response to the Gaza war.

Earlier this week, a video went viral of a 30-year-old Turkish graduate student, Rumeysa Ozturk, being detained by masked, plain-clothed figures near Tufts University in Massachusetts.

Ozturk had penned an op-ed in a student newspaper decrying Israel's actions in Gaza as "genocide." She now faces deportation.

Immigration lawyer Mahsa Khanbabai complained that Ozturk had been taken to a detention center in the southern state of Louisiana, despite a court order that she remain in Massachusetts, and was denied access to legal representation.

"Masked DHS agents unlawfully arrested my client," she said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security.

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, a Democrat from Massachusetts, accused the Trump administration of moving to "abduct students with legal status."

"This is a horrifying violation of Rumeysa's constitutional rights to due process and free speech. She must be immediately released," Pressley said in a statement.
Visas a 'gift'

Rubio, asked if Ozturk was being targeted over her writing in a student newspaper, said that she met his criteria for visa revocation without providing details.

"I would caution you against solely going off of what the media has been to identify" for the visa decision, the former senator told reporters later on his plane to his home city of Miami.

Rubio said that visas were a "gift" at the discretion of the State Department and not subject to any judicial review.

He said it was "crazy" to allow in the United States students who were "supportive of a group that just slaughtered babies," a reference to the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 that triggered massive Israeli retaliation.

Asked if the Trump administration would go after anyone who presents dissenting views, Rubio said, "If you're complaining about paper straws, then we're obviously not going to yank a visa over that."

"The overwhelming majority of student visas in this country will not be revoked," he said.

The most high-profile deportation case is Mahmoud Khalil, who led protests at Columbia University in New York. He was also taken to Louisiana ahead of deportation proceedings, despite being a US permanent resident.

Khalil's supporters reject the characterization that he supports Hamas and note that he has spoken out against antisemitism.

The US government has since pointed to technicalities in his original student visa.

Rubio contends that student activists have made education intolerable for Jewish students.

"If you tell us that the reason why you're coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we're not going to give you a visa," Rubio said in Guyana.

© 2025 AFP

STATEHOOD OR INDEPENDENCE

Puerto Rico Protests Against Higher Ed Cuts Follow Long Fight Against Austerity


The university showdown is the latest chapter in a decades-long struggle against austerity on the archipelago.

March 27, 2025
Teacher, students and workers of the University of Puerto Rico protest against a budget cut of $94 million imposed by the Fiscal Control Board on June 11, 2021, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.Alejandro Granadillo / NurPhoto via Getty Images

Teacher, students and workers of the University of Puerto Rico protest against a budget cut of $94 million imposed by the Fiscal Control Board on June 11, 2021, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.Alejandro Granadillo / NurPhoto via Getty Images

This February, President Luis A. Ferrao Delgado of the University of Puerto Rico resigned after attempting to suspend 64 educational programs. The measure targeted core disciplines such as history, philosophy and comparative literature, stunning the university community and provoking bitter opposition. Eleven days of protests followed, compelling Ferrao to reverse the decision before stepping down.

The university showdown is the latest chapter in a two-decade struggle against austerity, as Puerto Rico grapples with a debt crisis and economic stagnation. Since 2016, a fiscal control board has managed the U.S. colony’s finances. Repeatedly, board members have frozen university funding to secure spending cuts and encourage “operational efficiency,” whittling down academic departments, salaries and employee pensions.

Reportedly, Ferrao proposed his reform to unlock $102 million in public revenue that the board is withholding from educators. Authorities had long pressured him to reduce operating costs in exchange for access to basic funding. During his resignation, Ferrao denounced looming “draconian measures” for threatening the university’s “stability and educational mission,” implying that the board is squeezing the budget.

The debt crisis and struggle over education reflect both the failure of U.S. colonialism and capitalist development in Puerto Rico. For decades, officials in Washington, the local elite and foreign financiers have blamed the colony’s fiscal problems on profligate social spending. But these arguments stand reality on its head. In large part, Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis is the foreseeable result of policies that U.S. leaders have imposed from the outside: a model of economic development that relies on tax exemptions and low wages while prioritizing the rights of foreign investors over the well-being of residents.
Colonial Capitalism

During the Cold War, the U.S. government planted the seeds of the current crisis when it launched Operation Bootstrap to develop Puerto Rico’s economy. The modernization program aimed to attract investment by advertising tax exemptions and the territory’s cheap labor. By the 1950s, the international financial press portrayed Puerto Rico as a “bounty for industry” and “taxpayers’ paradise.” Gulf Caribbean and other petrochemical giants constructed factories, and apparel makers like Newberry Textile Mills turned the archipelago into a floating sweatshop: the single largest supplier of clothing to the U.S. market.

Related Story
News Analysis |
Politics & Elections
Resurgent Puerto Rico Independence Movement Challenges 126 Years of Colonialism
Openly promoting decolonization and a social democratic alternative, a historic coalition made record electoral gains.
By Jonathan Ng , TruthoutDecember 10, 2024

Leftists and independence activists noted that Bootstrap allowed corporations to shirk their fiscal responsibility and exploit workers while making the archipelago dependent on foreign capital. Yet authorities ruthlessly suppressed such criticism. For decades, U.S. officials illegally surveilled over 135,000 civilians to defend a highly unstable model of colonial capitalism.

One target was the independence leader, Juan Mari Brás, who denounced the “colonial-capitalist system” for enabling foreign corporations to absorb the “largest share” of Puerto Rico’s wealth. In response, the FBI allowed right-wing extremists to attack his party’s offices, newspaper press and daycare for young children. In a letter to the FBI director, a bureau agent celebrated Mari Brás’s heart attack in 1964, claiming that its harassment campaign was responsible for his brush with death.

Authorities began spying on his socialist colleague, Manuel de. J. González, when he was still a teenager. Eventually, the police enlisted two neighbors, his landlord, a postman and the local security guard as informants to monitor his activities. Decades later, González discovered that “almost every meeting that I attended is documented.”

The experiences of Mari Brás and González were not unusual. Defending U.S. rule and private investment, the CIA and FBI systematically persecuted dissent, compiling “a list of names” of political activists, spying on U.S. citizens, and intercepting “mail to and from Puerto Rico.” An undercover FBI agent even became the lover of Commander Gloria Fontanez of the Young Lords Organization, which promoted socialism in the colony. While physically abusing Fontanez, he helped engineer the group’s collapse.

Across Latin America, U.S. officials touted Operation Bootstrap as a model for emulation, but neglected a key detail: Repression was the heart of the economic program. Through the 1960s, foreign investment propelled growth in Puerto Rico. Yet wages stayed low, and policymakers promoted emigration to mitigate appallingly high levels of unemployment. As socialists observed, the economy remained dependent on foreign capital: a foundation that would vanish if investors chased profits elsewhere.
Rebooting the System

During the mid-1970s, a prolonged recession gripped Puerto Rico and discredited Operation Bootstrap. Unemployment rates and budget deficits climbed, as corporations began leaving the archipelago to exploit cheaper labor elsewhere in Latin America. The economist Iyari Ríos González registers roughly $16 million in capital flight for 1960, yet estimates that Puerto Rico hemorrhaged over $3 billion in 1980.

Once more, officials adopted fiscal incentives to lure foreign investment. In 1976, the U.S. Congress slotted Section 936 into the tax code, exempting corporate profits in Puerto Rico from federal taxes.

Repression remained a central feature of economic policy. Above all, Gov. Carlos Romero Barceló attacked social spending and workers to attract foreign capital, balance the budget and reverse deindustrialization. In 1977, his administration drafted a secret memo calling for a “carefully conceived plan” to permit the “participation of law enforcement agencies” in labor disputes. That year, police strangled the union leader Juan Rafael Caballero to death. Police also bludgeoned and shot striking workers. Meanwhile, authorities tacitly allowed firms like General Gases and Esso to ram trucks into picket lines and assault employees during labor disputes.

By battering the labor movement, Puerto Rican leaders kept wages flat and cultivated a pro-business climate for foreign investors. The combination of fiscal incentives and bare-knuckled repression stimulated investment and economic growth.

But it also infused the economy with dangerous contradictions. Corporate tax exemptions and high unemployment rates – which routinely surpassed 14 percent of the workforce – prevented Puerto Rico from developing a stable tax base. Government debt rose from 35 to 57 percent of GNP between 1970 and 2000. Increasingly, officials relied on bond sales to underwrite spending, as the public sector confronted revenue shortages.
Decadence and Austerity

By 2006, the North American Free Trade Agreement and expiration of Section 936 had undermined Puerto Rico’s appeal as a labor market, prompting the mass exodus of industry from the archipelago. It marked the definitive failure of the U.S.-imposed model of colonial capitalism. The territory’s already insufficient tax base migrated overseas, and the economy severely contracted.

Over the following decade, Puerto Rico spiraled into the worst municipal debt crisis in U.S. history by selling bonds to cover budget deficits.

The financial crisis and government response has reflected the deeper chaos of the colonial order. Since 2006, every governor’s office has combined austerity measures with visible corruption – cutting public services to reduce the debt, while embezzling funds for political gain.

Before pioneering austerity, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá oversaw an illegal campaign financing scheme to win the gubernatorial election in 2004. The leadership of the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association and a network of “collaborators” laundered over $7 million for him in illicit contributions. Under legal pressure, suspects admitted to wrongdoing in return for light sentences.

The legacy of corruption continued. Aníbal Vilá’s successor, Gov. Luis Fortuño, laid off thousands of public employees to pay foreign bondholders. Afterward, he retired to the law firm Steptoe & Johnson, while promoting Puerto Rican bond sales. The watchdog group Hedge Clippers acidly noted that Fortuño exited the government to advise “Wall Street types on how best to pillage his former homeland.”

Corruption then reached conspicuous heights under Gov. Alejandro García Padilla in 2013. His campaign manager, Anaudi Hernández Pérez, exploited personal connections to win government contracts, engage in influence laundering and practice extortion. A flamboyant businessman, Hernández raised funds for the Popular Democratic Party by holding drug-soaked parties with sex workers, nude revelers, fireworks and live music at his mansion.

In 2015, federal authorities swept up Hernández and other members of the García Padilla administration in an anti-corruption probe. Losing his patience, the FBI chief in Puerto Rico openly demanded García Padilla “clean the house of parasites… that have bled Puerto Rico dry and left it in critical condition.”

The scandal allowed the gubernatorial candidate Ricardo Rosselló of the New Progressive Party to win office in 2017, while promising to purge the government of corruption and stabilize the territory’s finances. To reduce Puerto Rico’s debt, his administration closed over 400 public schools. Yet in 2019, federal authorities arrested his secretary of education, Julia Keleher, for misappropriating government funds.

Days later, journalists published a Telegram thread exposing the Rosselló administration’s cronyism. One government whistleblower asserted that an “institutional mafia” held the reins of power in a key agency.

Two weeks of protests forced Rosselló to resign. Yet the ruling class’s combined commitment to austerity and personal enrichment endured. Bribery charges plagued Rosselló’s successor, Wanda Vázquez, after she left office. And her successor, Pedro Pierluisi, profited from both sides of the debt crisis: As a corporate lawyer, he helped Puerto Rico issue new bonds, before winning a federal contract to restructure these very debt obligations.

For two decades, the rituals of democracy in Puerto Rico have served to legitimate its colonial orientation and unpopular austerity measures. Elections offered voters candidates instead of options, as both major parties preached a gospel of fiscal discipline and shared sacrifice that they mocked in practice.
Blood in the Streets

During the same period, new grassroots movements emerged to resist the belt-tightening reforms and corruption. Every governor faced popular backlash as the debt crisis worsened. A discernible pattern took root, as government repression incited further waves of mobilization and undercut the legitimacy of the colonial order.

In September 2005, the FBI laid siege to the home of Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, a socialist activist who had organized a 1983 heist to raise funds for the independence movement. Since 1990, the elderly revolutionary had lived in hiding after removing a tracking device from his ankle. In a provocative display of force, a swarm of FBI agents invaded his neighborhood before triggering a shootout. Afterward, the bureau airlifted an injured agent to a hospital, while leaving Ojeda Ríos to die from a gunshot wound. Amnesty International called his death an “extrajudicial execution.”

The brutal raid occurred on the anniversary of the Grito de Lares – Puerto Rico’s equivalent to Independence Day – and turned Ojeda Ríos into an instant symbol of national resistance. Students forced the University of Puerto Rico to declare an “academic recess,” and the Puerto Rico Bar Association awarded Ojeda Ríos posthumous honors. The outpouring of grief and anger revealed a powerful undercurrent of frustration over the structural inequality and violence of the colonial order.

Immediately, Ojeda Ríos’s death galvanized a new wave of anti-colonial activism. Resurgent social movements largely focused on combating cuts to education, health care and other public services, while confronting the repressive power of the colonial government.

Student activists quickly assumed the vanguard of the struggle against austerity. In 2009, students at the University of Puerto Rico contested tuition hikes and gutted budgets by organizing protests that immobilized the campus.

Governor Fortuño in turn unleashed the police. Police boasted on social media about plowing through students with pepper spray and billy clubs, while acting as the shock troops of austerity. Addressing his colleagues, officer José Rosado openly fantasized about making blood “run” in the streets: “Dinner is served, boys… it’s time!” Other policemen celebrated the opportunity for “emptying” their rifles into crowds and promised to beat back “the mobs that don’t want to study.”

Police brutality led the mainstream Daily Sun to editorialize that the behavior of security forces was “comparable only to the acts of the dictatorships we all denounce.” The Department of Justice itself concluded that “constitutional violations” were “pervasive and plague all levels” of the Puerto Rico Police Department, unveiling a “staggering level of crime and corruption.”

Despite the repression, students have repeatedly mobilized to prevent the government from dismantling public services. In the spring of 2017, colonial authorities proposed slashing $450 million in funding for the University of Puerto Rico. Experts warned that the reform meant “the end of UPR.” And again, students launched a massive strike that police met with indiscriminate violence.

Then in September, Hurricane María slammed the archipelago. The warnings of student activists appeared prescient, as the natural disaster exposed the man-made scars left by over a decade of austerity politics. Puerto Rico’s weakened health care system, decaying infrastructure and anemic social programs collapsed. Ultimately, the legacy of austerity proved deadly: The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that 4,645 Puerto Ricans died in the hurricane’s wake.
The Dictatorship of Capital

The dialectic between resistance and repression continues to define Puerto Rican reality. Despite the austerity program, Puerto Rico’s debt rose from $35 to $72 billion between 2005 and 2017. In response, U.S. officials curbed local control of the archipelago’s debt, delegating authority to foreign financial institutions and, inadvertently, fueling movements that demand economic justice.

Since 2016, a fiscal control board appointed by the U.S. Congress has managed Puerto Rico’s finances. Residents simply call it the “Junta” – alluding to its undemocratic character and past Latin American dictatorships.

Tellingly, the first Treasury official to oversee the debt crisis, Antonio Weiss, previously received a $21 million retirement package from Lazard Frères, a firm heavily invested in Puerto Rican bonds. Federal officials stocked the Junta with foreign bankers and corporate lawyers. Their professional backgrounds made them unsympathetic to Puerto Rico’s plight. Indeed, before assuming her post, Director Natalie Jaresko of the Junta pocketed $1.7 million in bonuses while helping Ukraine navigate its own economic turmoil.

Board members have doubled down on austerity, further hollowing out social programs to pay foreign creditors. Yet the nonprofit group Espacios Abiertos demonstrates that the Junta has routinely overestimated the savings gained from cutting public services. Its 2018 fiscal statement predicted that such reforms would secure $193.9 billion in government savings over the next 30 years. By 2022, the board had lowered its forecast to $49.7 billion, before suspending predictions altogether. Ironically, the Junta itself aggravates the territory’s debt by managing a restructuring process that has cost over $1 billion.

This February, the Center for Investigative Journalism in Puerto Rico published an exposé revealing that the board refuses to leave the territory. After nearly a decade, Puerto Rican officials call the Junta a “leviathan,” explaining that “we have complied” with its demands only to receive additional ultimatums. Recently, the board released a report that admits spending cuts have devastated an “overburdened healthcare system.” Nonetheless, members remain confident in their leadership and have announced 50 new preconditions before the archipelago can regain its sovereignty.

The obstacles to its removal are formidable. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) reports that financial lobbyists have “repeatedly delayed and opposed efforts” to dissolve it and enjoy a stranglehold on Congress. Even Ivy League universities such as Harvard, Princeton and Yale have invested in Puerto Rico’s debt through hedge funds like the Baupost Group, profiting from the destruction of its educational system.

Yet grassroots movements are fighting back. As in 2009 and 2017, opposition erupted at the University of Puerto Rico when its president, Luis Ferrao, announced program cuts this January. The mass mobilization lambasted not only the Junta but U.S. colonialism. One leftist group, the Fighting Student Collective, asserts that “it is no coincidence” that cutbacks target the humanities since “a people that does not know its own history is easy to keep subjugated.”

A new governor, Jenniffer González, helped replace Ferrao with a political crony and appointed a lobbyist for bondholders as her chief of staff. What’s more, President Donald Trump’s federal funding cuts further undermine the viability of the colony’s education system, while extending political repression to the U.S. mainland. His attack on universities dramatizes the importance of solidarity in the struggle against austerity, which now threatens the very schools that have profited from Puerto Rico’s debt.

In short, the ongoing crisis reflects the contradictions of U.S. colonialism and capitalist development in the Global South. For decades, elite policymakers and investors have dismantled Puerto Rico’s economy, then cited the resultant debt crisis to shred its social safety net. Perversely, their own mistakes have become a justification for further exploitation, while the Junta and foreign capital attempt to milk a shrinking corpse. But such violence continues to inspire resistance, as social movements mobilize to combat austerity – again resurrecting the Puerto Rican nation in the struggle for a democratic and sovereign future.

The author would like to thank Sarah Priscilla Lee of the Learning Sciences Program at Northwestern University for reviewing this article.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Jonathan Ng  is a postdoctoral fellow at the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College.
'Game over': Yale fascism expert moving to Canada because US is becoming a 'dictatorship'


REUTERS/Marco Bello
Donald Trump, his wife Melania and son Barron board a U.S. Air Force plane to travel to Dulles International Airport from Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, U.S. January 18, 2025.

March 27, 2025
ALTERNET

Quite often, Americans who threaten to leave the United States for political reasons don't follow through when they see how complex the immigration laws of other countries can be. But during Donald Trump's second presidency, some well-known Americans really are expressing their worries about the United States' current political climate by moving to other countries.

Liberal actress Rosie O'Donnell, an outspoken Trump critic, is now living in the Republic of Ireland. And Jason Stanley, a Yale University professor known for his expertise on fascism, is accepting a job offer in Canada — as he fears the U.S. is becoming increasingly authoritarian.



Stanley, author of the 2018 book, "How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them," accepted a position at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. And he is speaking out about his reasons for leaving the U.S.

READ MORE: 'Fired because I dissented': Navy vet reveals the 5 sentences that got her laid off by DOGE

Stanley told the website The Daily Nous that he is moving to Canada "to raise my kids in a country that is not tilting towards a fascist dictatorship." And he believes that Columbia University in New York City and other colleges are making a huge mistake by capitulating to Trump rather than fighting back against his war on academia.

"When I saw Columbia completely capitulate," Stanley told the Daily Nous, "and I saw this vocabulary of: well, we're going to work behind the scenes because we're not going to get targeted — that whole way of thinking pre-supposes that some universities will get targeted, and you don't want to be one of those universities. And that's just a losing strategy. You've got to just band together and say an attack on one university is an attack on all universities. And maybe you lose that fight, but you’re certainly going to lose this one if you give up before you fight."

Stanley continued, "Columbia was just such a warning. I just became very worried because I didn't see a strong enough reaction in other universities to side with Columbia. I see Yale trying not to be a target. And as I said, that's a losing strategy."

Stanley's decision to move to Canada is inspiring some strong reactions on Social Media.

On Bluesky, 1619 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote, "When scholars of authoritarianism and fascism leave US universities because of the deteriorating political situation here, we should really worry."

Bluesky user Franklin Seal fears that the U.S. has passed the point of no return, posting, "If you are only beginning to worry now, you are part of the problem. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The best time to stop Hitler was in 1923. The best time to stop Trump was 2016. Now the professors are leaving. Soon, the stampede. Moving to Canada? Might not be safe much longer."

Journalist Etan Nechin views Stanley's departure from the U.S. as a troubling sign.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Nechin wrote, "Philosopher Jason Stanley leaving Yale for Canada 'because of the political climate' should set off serious alarm bells. 'Brain drain' is just a sanitized phrase meaning the flight of conscience and intellect from a country where probing at truths becomes a dangerous task."

On X, PBS' "Amanpour & Company" posted video of an interview in which Stanley discussed his decision to leave the U.S.

The professor/author told 'Amanpour & Company''s Michele Martin, "I would not do this if I saw all of our universities banding together. But it's not just the universities, Michele. It's the law firms, it's all of our American institutions…. Now, we see universities, including my university, saying things like: We're going to keep our head down so we're not targeted. As soon as I heard that vocabulary, I knew, sort of, it might be that the game is over. Because you're not banding together if you say, 'We're going to keep our head down.'"

'Grasp on reality': Trump is declaring war on 'truth itself' — and may win: conservative


President Donald Trump at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 22, 2025 (Gage Skidmore)
March 28, 2025
ALTERNET

During Donald Trump's first presidency, his then-White House advisor Kellyanne Conway was relentlessly mocked by critics for using the phrase "alternative facts." Conway's term, in political discourse, came to symbolize distortions and conspiracy theories that were widely accepted as truth in far-right MAGA media outlets.

In an article published by The Bulwark on March 28, Never Trump conservative Mona Charen argues that Trump, during his second term, is escalating the use of "alternative facts" and waging an all-out war on "truth itself."

The veteran columnist and former Nancy Reagan speechwriter explains, "You say the Earth is warming, well we have data that say the opposite. It’s 'alternative facts,' but this time, it's not just Kellyanne Conway riffing with reporters — it comes bearing a government imprimatur. It would be easier to count grains of sand on a beach than to keep track of the lies emanating from this administration, but manipulating official government studies and statistics is a step beyond anything we've seen and a profound threat."

Charen emphasizes that "truth itself" is an important tool for Trump's opponents — the problem is that many of his supporters live in a bubble and are only exposed to so-called "alternative facts."

"We have seen one institution after another buckle before Trump's onslaught," Charen laments. "If Congress is conquered, and Big Tech won't oppose him, and big media is bending the knee, and big law is folding, and universities are crumpling, and the judiciary is a question mark, who is left? Only the voters. They retain the power to wrest control of Congress from the GOP in 20 months, which would slow, if not quite extinguish, Trump's attempted revolt. But what if the voters don't have a grasp on reality?"

Charen continues, "What if the inflation rate rises to 9 percent, bird flu is ravaging farms across the Midwest, unemployment is climbing, the economy is shrinking, measles is killing hundreds of children, crime is up — but the government has suppressed or falsified the data that would reveal those conditions? Lies have always been the engine of MAGA, but now, we face the prospect that many government statistics, on which businesses, health professionals, and our whole society depends, will be manipulated by Trumpists."

Charen notes that while the authoritarian government in Mainland China will "sometimes misrepresent economic statistics," the U.S. government "has been pretty clean in this regard — until now." And the Never Trumper stresses that the second Trump Administration will badly distort data in the months ahead."

"The Trump Administration is doing more than attempting to seize unconstitutional power for an unaccountable executive," Charen warns. "It is seeking to destroy truth itself, the last tool of the opposition."

Mona Charen's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

PETER NAVARO 'KNOW NOTHING'

'Want me to answer?' CNN host pushes back as Trump aide says 'Ford isn't really American'

Sarah K. Burris
March 27, 2025 
RAW STORY


CNN host Kasie Hunt (left) and Peter Navarro, counselor to the president (right) (Photo: Screen capture via CNN video)


Peter Navarro, a counselor to President Donald Trump, clashed with CNN's Kasie Hunt on Thursday after he attempted to claim that American automakers weren't really American.

Navarro claimed that the tariffs would ultimately put more money in Americans' pockets, as much as $1,000, he said at one point.

CNBC reported Thursday, "Prices that consumers pay on the lot could increase by $4,000 to $15,000 per vehicle, depending on how much of the car is imported, according to several analysts’ estimates."

"I understand the big picture argument, but again, if you're an American family and you need a new car, is this weekend the best weekend to go out and get one?" asked Hunt. "Because I understand you're making a long-term play, but I don't understand how you can plausibly say that in the short term, car prices are not going up."

Navarro laughed, saying, "We've seen these concerns before," with economists warning of "massive inflationary shocks." However, Navarro toed the Trump line that tariffs will be paid for by the importing country.

"We've already had $3 trillion across our economy, and we feel really good," Navarro said. He did not provide a source for the number.

Hunt asked about the "big three" automakers in the U.S. and whether tariffs would cost the companies so much that they could respond by making staffing cuts.

"So, so, the first thing that's really important to understand is that the big three so-called American companies, GM, Ford, Stellantis, they're not, they're not really American companies," Navarro said, making quotation marks with his fingers.


"General Motors isn't an American company?" Hunt pushed back.

"They have, well, in this sense, Kasie, this is really interesting," Navarro continued.

"Ford isn't an American company?" she asked.


"Hang on," Navarro tried to interject.

"They built Ford tough?" Kasie quipped.

"Kasie, you want me to answer the question?" Navarro said.

"Go ahead," she replied, shaking her head at Navarro's comments.

"This is really interesting. They have less American content in their cars than some of the other companies that are operating in America, like Honda. Okay. So, when you ask about—" he continued before she cut him off.

"So, Honda is a more American car company?" she questioned.

Navarro went on about engines made in Korea and drivetrains with better-paying jobs in Germany. He ultimately pledged that everything Trump does will become a "golden age" for America.

See the clip below or at the link here.

Man charged with destroying Teslas in Las Vegas, amid anti-Musk wave

Agence France-Presse
March 27, 2025 

The March 18 attack on a Tesla collision center in Las Vegas was one of a number against Tesla cars and businesses. (AFP)

A man who allegedly set fire to five Teslas and sprayed them with bullets from a semi-automatic rifle appeared in a US court Thursday to face federal arson charges, the Department of Justice said.

Paul Hyon Kim, 36, is suspected of being behind the assault on a Tesla business in Las Vegas, among a wave of attacks targeting Elon Musk's electric car brand as anger rises over government funding cuts he is overseeing.

The DoJ said in a statement that emergency services were called to the Tesla repair center on March 18 after reports of gunshots.

"During the investigation, it was determined that Molotov cocktails and a .30 caliber AR-style firearm were used to damage and destroy five Tesla vehicles, and graffiti was sprayed to write 'Resist' on the front of the building," the statement said.

Kim was arrested a week later. He has been charged with one count of unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of arson.

He faces up to 20 years in prison on the arson charge alone.

"The Department of Justice has been clear: anyone who participates in the wave of domestic terrorism targeting Tesla properties will suffer severe legal consequences," said US Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

"We will continue to find, arrest, and prosecute these attackers until the lesson is learned."

Musk, the South African-born billionaire chief of Tesla and SpaceX, is leading Donald Trump's ruthless cost-cutting drive at the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Several Tesla dealerships and a number of cars around the country have been vandalized in recent weeks and the company's stock price has plummeted over the past month.
'Tributes are required': Foreign leaders and CEOs 'privately' insult 'mob boss' Trump


David McAfee
March 28, 2025


FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. President Donald Trump, flanked by attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, arrives for his criminal trial at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, NY on Wednesday, May 29, 2024. Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records last year, which prosecutors say was an effort to hide a potential sex scandal, both before and after the 2016 presidential election. Trump is the first former U.S. president to face trial on criminal charges. Jabin Botsford/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Donald Trump's transactional nature has carried over into his second presidency, leading CEOs and world leaders to whisper behind his back, according to a report.

Axios reported early Friday morning that, "If you're a foreign leader or a CEO about to meet with President Trump — or if you want to avoid his vengeance — come bearing gifts."

"Government officials and business leaders around the world have gotten the message and are strategizing about how to give Trump real or perceived wins to try to smooth out any relationship bumps with the new administration, and avoid economic or legal penalties," the report states.

The report goes as far as to state that, "Some privately have compared him to a mob boss: Tributes are required, and the shakedowns come with the full weight of the U.S. government."

"Many foreign and domestic corporations alike fear tariffs and potential changes to the tax code this year, and have tried to assuage Trump with offerings," Axios reports, noting that "Apple, Hyundai, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Nvidia, Softbank and more have announced large investments in the U.S. since Trump was elected in November."

"Some of those investments were already in the works, but splashy public announcements gave Trump the chance to boast that he was bringing business back to America," it states. "After Hyundai this week announced a $21 billion investment in the U.S., Trump praised the company and made clear what the company would get in return: 'Hyundai won't have to pay any tariffs.'"

The report goes on to note other offerings to Trump, including from the leader of Mexico as well as Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, as well.

According to the report, "Trump and his team believe they're just using the levers of power in ways that other presidents didn't, but should have."

Read the full piece here.



The $20B question hanging over America’s struggling farmers


Ayurella Horn-Muller,
 Grist
March 28, 2025 

Farmers. (Shuterstock)

As Earth heats up, the growing frequency and intensity of disasters like catastrophic storms and heat waves are becoming a mounting problem for the people who grow the planet’s food. Warming is no longer solely eroding agricultural productivity and food security in distant nations or arid climates. It’s throttling production in the United States.

Farmers and ranchers across the country lost at least $20.3 billion in crops and rangeland to extreme weather last year, according to a new Farm Bureau report that crowned the 2024 hurricane season “one of the most destructive in U.S. history” and outlined a long list of other climate-fueled impacts.Grist Weekly
| Can’t keep up with every climate headline? Here’s One Big Thing that really matters each week.Sign up now

Texas experienced the highest losses for the third year in a row. Extreme drought, excessive heat, and high winds took out more than $3.4 billion worth of crops like cotton and wheat, and damaged rangeland. Flooding cost Minnesota some $1.45 billion in corn, soybeans, and forage, among other crops. California endured nearly all the same weather challenges as the south-central U.S. and the upper Midwest, costing its agricultural sector $1.4 billion.

And then there was the one-two punch of hurricanes Helene and Milton that tore through the Southeast. Georgia’s agricultural sector sustained over $459 million in losses as Helene wiped out crops like peanuts, pecans, and cotton. The same storm destroyed some $174 million worth of tobacco, blueberries, and apples in North Carolina. Florida’s ag industry lost nearly twice that to the two hurricanes, adding to the problems pummeling citrus production, all of them caused by previous storms, water scarcity, and disease.


Those tallies are but a snapshot of the economic impact of last year’s disasters on U.S. farm production, as they only account for damages wrought by major weather events such as billion-dollar disasters. They also don’t figure in most livestock or infrastructure losses following Helene and Milton, which significantly hike up total agricultural economic impacts for states like Georgia and Florida.

By the end of the year, farmers from coast to coast were left with diminished income, unpaid bills, and little recourse. Those financial stressors were compounded by inflation, surging labor and production costs, disruptions to global supply and demand, and increased price volatility. So in December, Congress authorized nearly $31 billion in emergency assistance to help struggling producers.

Last week, the USDA opened those disaster aid applications and said it was expediting disbursements. But there’s a catch: The funding pot the agency is gearing up to distribute makes up just a third of the assistance Congress approved.


That $10 billion is intended for farmers growing traditional commodities, such as corn, cotton, and soybeans, and is available to those who experienced most any kind of loss, not just those stemming from extreme weather. Payouts are determined by multiplying a flat commodity rate, based on calculated economic loss, with acres planted. It significantly limits eligibility, said Billy Hackett, policy analyst at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and funnels help away from smaller farmers into the pockets of industrial-scale operations. Fewer than 6 percent of U.S. farms sold more than three-fourths of all agricultural products between 2017 and 2022. “[The program] works exceedingly well for the largest farms, but leaves behind smaller farms,” said Hackett.

The USDA has not yet said when or how the remaining $21 billion will be distributed. That funding was, in fact, allocated for producers impacted by weather-related disasters in 2023 and 2024. But unlike the package structured for commodity growers, which had a 90-day timeline for implementation, Hackett noted that the USDA doesn’t necessarily have to act quickly on it. The American Relief Act that authorized the funding gives the USDA 120 days to begin reporting on its implementation progress, but no hard deadline for actually disbursing money. That means the $21 billion program isn’t on the same ticking congressional clock.

Ultimately, lawmakers did not provide clear reasoning for why they split the pot and crafted different disbursement mechanisms, with one measure of relief pushed through over the other. Hackett noted that it could be a reflection of who policymakers in Washington are hearing from most: “Who is the loudest? Who has the most meetings? It doesn’t always reflect who is in the most need.”

Read Next
Farmers and small business owners were promised financial help for energy upgrades. They’re still waiting for the money.
Emily Jones, Katie Myers, Juanpablo Ramirez-Franco
, & Izzy Ross

That lack of a deadline also doesn’t mean the agency shouldn’t move quickly, said Hackett. The $21 billion program is primed to help many more farmers, he said, particularly those that are underserved and passed over by other federal programs such as crop insurance. Farms without crop insurance tend to be small and medium-sized, while the bulk of larger farms have coverage. Speciality crop farms — those producing fruits, vegetables, nuts, horticulture, and nursery crops — are also less likely to be covered than those that produce commodities. Just 15 percent were insured in 2022, compared to nearly two-thirds of oilseed and grain farms.

Hackett worries that the application process may end up being unduly demanding or complicated, and that small or uninsured operators and historically excluded farmers that have faced issues with federal disaster relief eligibility and coverage in the past will be shut out. That has been the case with previous supplemental disaster relief programs, including the Wildfire, Hurricane, and Indemnity Program enacted in 2017 under the first Trump administration.

In a briefing last week, Brooke Appleton, the deputy undersecretary for farm production and conservation, told reporters that more information on the $21 billion program should be “coming soon.” This followed remarks Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins made late last month when she noted the agency would hit the congressional deadline of March 21 for sending out the full $31 billion — despite that deadline not applying to two-thirds of the money. The USDA did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

Meanwhile, farmers like Daniel Spatz are left wondering what’s next. Last spring, he lost roughly $20,000 because “intense” rain waterlogged his central Arkansas fields, leaving him unable to plant 70 acres of rice. The year before, a prolonged drought cost him much more. Spatz is among the 13 percent or so of farmers with crop insurance, but recouped no more than $2,000 after the heavy rains. He’s unsure if he’s eligible for this disaster aid program, which he sees as another sign that the Trump administration is supporting large farmers “at the expense” of small operators like himself. Above all, he’s concerned about calamities yet to come.

“It appears to me that we’re depending more and more on the government to bail us out of these climate-induced disasters,” he said. The USDA shelled out more than $16 billion to farmers from 2022 through 2024 for crops lost to extreme weather events alone. “My question to the Trump administration would be, ‘How much do we have to spend as a society, bailing out people, rebuilding and putting public funds into rescuing people, citizens? What does that price tag have to be before climate change is understood as real, and a public threat, a threat to our future?’”
Latest Trump order seen as message to workers: 'Fall in line or else'
 Common Dreams
March 28, 2025 

Hard hats and a strike sign. (Photo credit:: Stella_E / Shutterstock)

President Donald Trump's latest attack on the working class was delivered in the form of an executive order late Thursday that seeks to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal government workers, a move that labor rights advocates said is not only unlawful but once again exposes Trump's deep antagonism toward working people and their families.

The executive order by Trump says its purpose is to "enhance the national security of the United States," but critics say its clear the president is hiding behind such a claim as a way to justify a broadside against collective bargaining by the public workforce and to intimidate workers more broadly.


"President Trump's latest executive order is a disgraceful and retaliatory attack on the rights of hundreds of thousands of patriotic American civil servants—nearly one-third of whom are veterans—simply because they are members of a union that stands up to his harmful policies," said Everett Kelley, president of the 820,000-member American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest union of federal workers.

"The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we’ve fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being." —Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO

The far-reaching order, which cites the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act as the source of his presidential authority, goes way beyond restricting collective bargaining and union representation at agencies with a national security mandate, but instead tries to ensnare dozens of federal agencies and classifications of federal workers who work beyond that scope.

According to the Associated Press, the intent of the order "appears to touch most of the federal government."

AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler responded with disgust to the order, pointing out that the move comes directly out of the pre-election blueprint of the Heritage Foundation, which has been planning this kind of attack against the federal workforce and collective bargaining for years, if not decades.

"Straight out of Project 2025, this executive order is the very definition of union-busting," said Schuler in a Thursday night statement. "It strips the fundamental right to unionize and collectively bargain from workers across the federal government at more than 30 agencies. The workers who make sure our food is safe to eat, care for our veterans, protect us from public health emergencies and much more will no longer have a voice on the job or the ability to organize with their coworkers for better conditions at work so they can efficiently provide the services the public relies upon."

Shuler said the order is clearly designed as "punishment for unions who are leading the fight against the administration's illegal actions in court—and a blatant attempt to silence us."

The White House practically admitted as much, saying in a statement that "Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions." In effect, especially with a definition of "national security" that encompasses a vast majority of all government functions and agencies, the president has told an estimated two-thirds of government workers they are no longer allowed to disagree with or obstruct his efforts as they organize to defend their jobs or advocate for better working conditions.

Describing the move as "bullying tactics" by Trump and his administration, Kelley said the order represents "a clear threat not just to federal employees and their unions, but to every American who values democracy and the freedoms of speech and association. Trump’s threat to unions and working people across America is clear: fall in line or else."

"These threats will not work. Americans will not be intimidated or silenced. AFGE isn't going anywhere. Our members have bravely served this nation, often putting themselves in harm’s way, and they deserve far better than this blatant attempt at political punishment," he added.

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 11: Members of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union protest against firings during a rally to defend federal workers in Washington, DC on February 11, 2025.Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images


Both AFGE and the AFL-CIO said they would fight the order tooth and nail on behalf of federal workers—and all workers—who have a right to collective bargaining and not to be intimidated for organizing their workplaces, whether in the public or private sector.

"To every single American who cares about the fundamental freedom of all workers, now is the time to be even louder," said Shuler. "The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we've fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being."

Kelley said AFGE was "preparing immediate legal action" in response to Trump's order, and vowed to "fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks."





















'Tyranny of the bosses': How Musk plans to trample workers’ rights across the board

Elon Musk at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 20, 2025 (Gage Skidmore)


Alex Henderson
March 28, 2025
ALTERNET


Billionaire Elon Musk, leader of Tesla, SpaceX and X.com and head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is making it clear that no federal government agency in the U.S. is safe from mass layoffs. The Trump Administration and DOGE are drawing criticism not only from liberals and progressives, but also, from some Never Trump conservatives on the right.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele, for example, are saying that while they are fine with fat and pork being trimmed from the federal government, the U.S. is facing a dangerous threat when vital experts — such as air traffic controllers, food inspectors and health officials — are being arbitrarily laid off.

In an article published by Salon on March 28, journalist James Hassett argues that the damage being inflicted by the DOGE layoffs goes way beyond putting so many federal employees out of work at once — it is an attack on workers' rights across the board.

"From arbitrary layoffs to intimidation tactics to targeted harassment," Hassett warns, "Elon Musk has brought the tyrannical practices of the corporate Americaworld to the federal government…. Musk has led his legally ambiguous 'Department of Government Efficiency,' known as DOGE, on a rampage across the federal services — an attack that resembles the ruthless cost-cutting of private equity acquisitions, or rather, Musk’s own disastrous takeover of Twitter."

Hassett adds, "With Trump's fawning approval, Musk is dismantling the American constitutional system, flouting federal law to purge perceived ideological enemies from the civil service and circumventing congressional authority by cutting off appropriated federal funding — and doing so in open defiance of the courts."

Describing Musk as a "corporate hatchet man," Hassett stresses that the DOGE head favors a workplace in which employees have few, if any, rights.

"Musk doesn't just bring Silicon Valley's 'disruptor' mindset to DC — he embodies the idea that the executive, whether a CEO or a president, should be the unbridled sovereign of his domain," Hassett explains. "A boss can hire and fire at will, cancel contracts and direct funding without any checks to his power. Now, Musk threatens to remake the federal government into a business — with the president as an all-powerful boss. Musk and Trump don’t just want the government to run like a business, they want to rule it like one. Welcome to the tyranny of the bosses…. It's not efficiency that Musk pursues, but authority."

James Hassett's full article for Salon is available at this link.