'Holy tariff mess, Batman!' Nobel-winner Paul Krugman 'shocked' by​ Trump's tariff blow

Daniel Hampton
August 29, 2025

RAW STORY

President Donald Trump's tariff battle suffered a major defeat Friday when a federal appeals court ruled that his most extensive tariffs were illegal, saying he overstepped his authority. And Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman expressed "shock."

The court found that the law Trump used to hand down steep tariffs did not grant him the power to enforce them. The ruling's implementation was suspended until Oct. 14, however, to allow the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The ruling challenged Trump's use of emergency powers for trade deficit and other economic concerns.

Writing on his blog, Krugman reacted to the ruling writing, "Holy tariff mess, Batman."

"Wow. An appeals court, backing up the Court of International Trade, has just ruled the majority of Trump’s tariffs illegal. We kind of knew this was coming, but the reality still comes as a shock," he said.

Krugman emphasized that the court didn't find the tariffs were unlawful; rather, the way Trump went about implementing them was, specifically, by claiming an economic emergency.

"But just saying 'I am the Tariff Man, and here are my tariffs' isn’t OK," remarked Krugman.

The former New York Times columnist pointed out that the president is declaring an economic emergency while simultaneously proclaiming the economy has never been stronger.

"So how can things both be terrific and an emergency calling for drastic action?" he asked.

Krugman then mocked the president over his furious reaction on Truth Social, in which he declared the ruling, if upheld, would "literally destroy" America.

"Take away these tariffs, and the county will revert to the blasted wasteland it was on … April 1, just before Trump made his big tariff announcement," he wrote.

Krugman conceded that an "utterly craven" Supreme Court could hand Trump an eventual win — or they could "balk." Either way, Krugman called it a "self-inflicted disaster," since Trump could have just had Republican lawmakers vote on the tariffs.


He concluded that if the tariffs are ultimately declared illegal, it won't embarrass America, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed.

"It will embarrass Trump and Bessent. If anything, it might reassure the rest of the world that some vestige of rule of law yet remains in this nation," he said.

'Boom!' Critics rejoice as court deals 'big blow' to Trump’s tariffs

Daniel Hampton
August 29, 2025 

RAW STORY

A demonstrator holds a placard depicting U.S. President Donald Trump during a protest against tariffs on Brazilian products imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, outside the U.S. Consulate in Sao Paulo, Brazil August 1, 2025. REUTERS/Amanda Perobelli

President Donald Trump's tariffs suffered a "big blow" in court on Friday, and critics could not hide their satisfaction.

A federal appeals court ruled Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping global tariffs using emergency authority, finding those tariffs unconstitutional. However, the court left the tariffs in place temporarily while the matter is appealed further, likely to the Supreme Court.

The ruling largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York. It comes as experts warn of "staggering" price hikes that could hit Americans.

CNN's Jake Tapper called it a "big blow" on air to Trump's agenda. New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman told Tapper the same during a brief interview after the ruling dropped.

Reaction was swift across the internet.


Frank Amari‪, a former public defender, joked on Bluesky, "So much winning!!"


Historian and writer Trent Nelson wrote on Bluesky, "Yea. Obviously."

Economist Justin Wolfers‪ cheered the ruling on Bluesky, but warned the fight isn't over.

"BOOM. The federal appeals court rules Trump's tariffs illegal, because they are. There's no national emergency, and so the power to tariff a country rests with Congress. Trump admin has lost at every stage of the process, but stay tuned for the Supremes to chime in."


He noted, "This won't end all tariffs. This ruling applies to tariffs applied to entire countries (which is most of the tariff agenda). The industry-specific tariffs use a different legal authority, and will remain. The White House has other (more limited) tariff powers it'll dust off."

Dmitry Grozoubinski‪, author of "Why Politicians Lie About Trade," wrote on Bluesky, "Appeals court says Trump's fentanyl and reciprocal tariffs are unlawful. Looking forward to the 6-3 SCOTUS decision which upholds them anyway because the Constitution clearly states Trump is an omnipotent God-Emperor destined to reign upon the Golden Throne until all is returned to dust."

Analyst and writer Christian Roselund‪ wrote on Bluesky, "This is the second court ruling to affirm that #Trump 's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to set sweeping, economy-wide tariffs is illegal. The Trump Admin will almost certainly appeal. Not sure what the next stop is."

 'Our country would be destroyed': Trump continues attack on judges who blocked his tariffs

Robert Davis
August 31, 2025 
RAW STORY


A court ruling that blocked the president's signature tariff agenda seemed to stick under his skin over the weekend.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, President Donald Trump raged against the seven appellate judges who ruled on Friday that his tariff policy was illegal. The 7-4 opinion states that Trump's reasoning for the tariffs did not constitute an emergency; therefore, any tariffs that were implemented under the auspices of an emergency were declared null.

Trump responded to the court's decision in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

"Without Tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The president also seemed to congratulate one of the judges who voted to leave the tariffs in place.

" In a 7 to 4 Opinion, a Radical Left group of judges didn’t care, but one Democrat, Obama appointed, actually voted to save our Country," Trump wrote. "I would like to thank him for his Courage! He loves and respects the U.S.A."

Read the entire post below.

Trump rampages that tariff blow will ‘literally destroy’ America if upheld

Matthew Chapman
August 29, 2025 

RAW STORY


President Donald Trump released a furious rant on his Truth Social platform after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that his tariff policies are illegal.

The ruling held that the president does not have authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact the type of global tariffs he has claimed authority for.

Trump particularly drew attention to the fact that the ruling is delayed from taking effect until October, and vowed to fight the decision at the Supreme Court.

"ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!" wrote Trump. "Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong."

"The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else," he continued. "If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians."

"Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again!" wrote Trump. "Thank you for your attention to this matter."

Trump Tariffs Bound for Supreme Court After Another Legal Loss

If the president's policies are struck down, the administration may have to repay billions of dollars in duties, which customs and trade experts warn "would be a logistical nightmare."


US President Donald Trump delivers remarks on what he claimed are reciprocal tariffs during an event at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2025.
(Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Aug 29, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

As working-class Americans endure the pain from US President Donald Trump's tariff war, the Republican signaled that he plans to keep fighting for the levies after a loss at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Trump is the first president to impose tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. In a 7-4 ruling, the appellate court's majority found that most of his tariffs are illegal.




Grocery Chains Are Passing Trump Tariff Costs on to US Consumers With Higher Prices: Report

The court said that "tariffs are a core congressional power" and "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the reciprocal tariffs and trafficking tariffs."

The decision affirms a May ruling from the US Court of International Trade, which also found that Trump exceeded his authority.

Friday's ruling is paused until October 14, to give the White House time to appeal to the nation's highest court. Trump suggested he would do so in a post on his Truth Social platform, writing:

ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else. If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Politico noted that the Friday decision opens the door "for the administration to potentially have to repay billions worth of duties," and pointed to recent warnings from customs and trade experts "that repayments would be a logistical nightmare, and would likely trigger a wave of legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement."

Trump's latest legal loss on the tariff front follows various analyses and polling that show the harm his policies are causing. One Accountable.US report from this month highlights comments from grocery executives about passing costs on to consumers, and a recent survey found that 90% of Americans consider the price of groceries a source of stress.

Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee also released a related report earlier this month. As JEC Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said at the time, "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."

Another mid-August analysis from the Century Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative details the surging cost of school supplies as American families prepared for the 2025-26 academic year. TCF senior fellow Rachel West said that "from his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."

'Big blow to the president's agenda': NYT's Haberman details major Trump setback in court

CNN host Jake Tapper and New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman on CNN on August 29, 2025 (Image: Screengrab via CNN / YouTube)

Carl Gibson

August 29, 2025  

ALTERNET

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a previous decision by a lower court that the vast bulk of President Donald Trump's tariffs — which he imposed by claiming emergency powers — were unconstitutional. And according to New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, it's one of the biggest legal setbacks yet for Trump's second administration.

During a segment with CNN host Jake Tapper, Haberman said that the decision was highly anticipated by everyone in the administration who works on trade issues. She added that administration officials had been fearing that it would be "difficult" to defend Trump's assumed emergency powers before the federal judiciary.

"The U.S. is going to end up in a position, if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, and it's almost certainly going to go to the Supreme Court, the U.S. is now going to be in a position to pay people — countries, excuse me — back, for tariffs. That gets very complicated," she said. "So this is a big blow to the president's agenda. He has sometimes ignored courts. We'll see what this looks like."

Haberman's point that tariffs could have to be paid back to countries affected by them could prove expensive for taxpayers. The Associated Press reported that as of July, total year-over-year tariff revenue exceeded $159 billion. Trump imposed the tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which allows a president to assume certain new powers under an economic emergency. But during oral arguments, one of the judges hearing the case pointed out that the IEEPA statute doesn't even mention tariffs.

Moreover, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that only Congress has the power to levy tariffs, stating that the legislative branch "shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Shortly after the decision was announced, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to blast the judges (who he deemed "Highly Partisan" in his signature style of oddly-placed capital letters) that struck down his tariffs. He also insisted that "ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!"

"If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else," he wrote. "If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America."

Watch Haberman's segment below, or by clicking this link.

 

Op-Ed: Trump tariffs illegal but SCOTUS will probably support them. There’s a problem with that.

By Paul Wallis

EDITOR AT LARGE

DIGITAL JOURNAL
August 29, 2025


On April 2, US President Donald Trump, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick beside him, unveiled sweeping tariffs on almost all trading partners - Copyright AFP/File Brendan SMIALOWSKI

The Trump administration’s tariffs are universally unpopular worldwide. American importers have to pay the extra costs, which are passed on to consumers. The increased costs inevitably mean fewer goods are sold. Countries are targeted individually with weaponized tariffs. Global trade is an appalling mess.

These tariffs are raised under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, held in a 7-4 ruling that the statute does not empower the imposition of tariffs. In fact, the Act makes no mention of tariffs.

Meaning that many of the controversial tariffs now imposed also exceed the authority granted by the Act. Therefore, they’re illegal. It’s expected that the administration will appeal to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court will uphold the tariffs.

In the meantime, the administration maintains that the tariffs are legal. It’s a Yes or No situation. If only it were that simple.

But –

The problem with these tariffs and their legalities or lack of legalities is that the US isn’t the only party involved. US importers can fairly say that if the statutory basis of the tariffs is illegal, they shouldn’t have to pay those billions in extra costs. Industry lobbies are likely to put a lot of pressure on the administration as the effects of tariffs become clearer.

That issue’s not likely to go away. The administration has nailed itself to tariffs as an instrument of international economic policy. There’s even a level of “prestige” in sticking to tariffs as the only way to do business. If the tariffs go, the whole house of cards goes with them.

The Supreme Court is in a particularly thankless position. If the Appeals Court is correct in that tariffs are not specifically empowered by the Act, any and all tariffs could be challenged in individual court actions.

Here’s the twist. The Supreme Court would have to make a blanket ruling that all tariffs stand to support the administration. That would lock in added costs for importers and consumers. There would be a lot of pushbacks from the various economic sectors and other countries. Any negotiation with any other country would have to start with trade.

Alternatively, any decision that the tariffs are not empowered by the Act effectively demolishes the entire tariff structure. That means that tariffs as a nominal source of revenue to pay for the ideologically sacred tax cuts would also be scuttled as a budgetary option.

In practice, of course, it’s much worse. A brief overview of the last 200 years of tariffs is hardly encouraging. Tariffs just don’t work. The current range of tariffs are already seen as a major threat to prices. Tariffs are the antithesis of free trade, the supposed basis of modern capitalism.

Nothing can move fast on this subject. As expected by just about everyone, the inherent constipation of the tariffs dogma will prevent movement.

“Sic transit ingloria.” So goes the inglorious.

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

Hard Lessons From Katrina We’re Still Learning 20 Years Later


Hurricane Katrina not only exposed the vulnerability of communities to extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change, but also systemic injustices and a deeply flawed US insurance system.


Water surrounds homes in the devastated Ninth Ward in this aerial view of damage from Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans on August 30, 2005.
(Photo by Smiley N. Pool/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Charles Slidders

Alexandra Colon-Amil
Aug 29, 2025

CIEL Blog

It’s been 20 years since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States, wreaking havoc in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. An estimated 1,833 people died in the hurricane and the flooding that ensued. The storm destroyed or damaged more than a million housing units and more than 200,000 homes, causing one of the largest relocations of people in US history.

In the months and years that followed, entrenched inequalities, questionable policy choices, and predatory practices by private insurers decided who could return home and rebuild. For instance, countless residents impacted by the hurricane learned too late that their standard homeowners’ insurance offered no protection against flood damage, leaving them to shoulder devastating repair costs themselves. In cities such as New Orleans, these dynamics further marginalized Black residents, who were more likely to live in flood-prone neighborhoods. The result was widespread and often permanent displacement, with longtime communities effectively erased from the map.

Hurricane Katrina not only exposed the vulnerability of communities to extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change, but also systemic injustices and a deeply flawed US insurance system. Private insurers pour billions of dollars into the fossil fuel industry, which is the main contributor to climate change. Thus, insurers help fuel the very crisis that is driving more frequent and severe climate disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Meanwhile, they are passing the financial risk of the escalating impact of climate change onto policyholders and forcing them to bear the costs of the crisis the industry itself helps perpetuate.

As climate-driven storms grow more frequent and increasingly destructive, the same insurance failures, housing crises, and inequitable recovery that followed Katrina now threaten communities nationwide. Two decades later, Katrina’s hard lessons cannot be ignored. Everyone deserves to live in safety and the opportunity to stay in the place they call home. Corporate greed and government negligence cannot continue to undermine these rights.

The Hurricane

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall with winds that reached 140 miles per hour. These high-velocity winds drove a storm surge that raised sea levels 25 to 28 feet above normal along parts of the Mississippi coast, and 10 to 20 feet along the southeastern Louisiana coast. The surge breached protective levees, causing catastrophic flooding. Two days after the hurricane struck, 80% of the city of New Orleans was underwater. Other coastal towns and cities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and along the western Florida panhandle also experienced significant storm surges and destructive winds, which caused widespread flooding and damage to homes.

The Great Displacement

Approximately 1.5 million people aged 16 years and older had to leave their residences in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama because of Hurricane Katrina. In New Orleans, where the mayor issued a mandatory evacuation order, a population of around 500,000 was reduced to a few thousand people within a week of the storm.

As water was pumped out of the flooded areas and basic services and infrastructure were restored, New Orleanians were allowed to return. But tens of thousands were not able to do so. One year after Katrina, approximately 197,000 residents had not come back to the city; many relocated to the relatively close cities of Houston and Baton Rouge, but others as far away as Alaska and Massachusetts. Still today, many of those who evacuated the city, hoping to return, remain displaced. New Orleans’s metropolitan area population remains 20% below pre-Katrina levels.

The Impact On Black Communities

The development of New Orleans has been fraught with injustices. Racial segregation, redlining, and chronic underinvestment in Black communities pushed residents and renters into areas with crumbling infrastructure, poorer-quality homes, and greater exposure to environmental hazards and contaminants.

When Katrina hit, Black residents were concentrated in the most vulnerable parts of New Orleans, located well below sea level and poorly protected by inadequate levees. Accordingly, neighborhoods with the highest percentages of Black residents saw greater housing destruction from the storm.

Did You Know?

The disparate impact of climate disasters on property and infrastructure in US minority communities is the result of nearly a century of discriminatory home lending and insurance policies.

In the 1930s, the US federal government used a rating system in its low-cost home loan program to assess lending risk. Assessors created maps ranking the perceived risk of lending in certain neighborhoods, with race often used as the determining factor in assessing a community’s risk level. Black and immigrant neighborhoods were typically rated as “hazardous” and outlined in red, warning lenders that the area was a perilous place to lend money. Known as redlining, these and other discriminatory practices led to a lack of investment in minority communities.

This lack of financial access resulted in shoddy construction and poor infrastructure that have made minority neighborhoods less resilient to climate disasters and more prone to other financial risks. For instance, insurers are more likely to increase premiums if they determine that properties are less resilient to climate damage. This new financial practice is known as bluelining, and it occurs when insurers raise their prices or pull out of areas that they perceive to be at greater environmental risk.

Reconstruction: A New Pathway to Segregation?

For Lousina’s Black residents, Katrina’s damage was compounded by discriminatory recovery policies that deepened inequalities. After the storm, the federally funded Road Home program was launched to help residents repair or rebuild damaged homes. It offered grants of up to $150,000 per homeowner, but payments were based on whichever was lower—the home’s pre-storm value or the cost to rebuild.

Because property values in Black neighborhoods were often far lower than in white neighborhoods, this meant many Black homeowners would receive only a fraction of what they needed to rebuild. In one case, a woman had rebuilding costs of over $150,000, but because the estimated value of her home pre-storm was much lower, she would’ve received an essentially useless grant of $1,400. As a result, the program was alleged to discriminate against Black homeowners, and a federal class action suit was filed on November 12, 2008, on behalf of 20,000 homeowners. The litigation settled with Louisiana agreeing to reward approximately 1,300 homeowners with $62 million in additional compensation.

The Blow to Affordable Housing

Renters fared no better. Hurricane Katrina damaged or destroyed 82,000 rental units in Louisiana, 20% of which were affordable to extremely low-income households. The impact on public and federally subsidized rentals was especially severe. In New Orleans, public-housing residents were displaced at a rate of nearly 90%. And reconstruction policies only exacerbated the disparities these residents faced.
Consider this.

Before the storm hit and floodwaters rose, the Housing Authority of New Orleans evacuated all residents living in its 7,379 public housing units. After the waters receded, residents were allowed to return to approximately 1,600 units. Most other units were sealed off with steel doors and barbed wire—officially due to storm damage—before being slated for demolition. Yet, the redevelopment that followed included far fewer mixed-income apartments. By 2010, five years after the hurricane, less than half of the original 7,379 units were open in any form. The dramatic decrease in public housing contributed to the permanent displacement of many of New Orleans’ longtime residents.

After Katrina, renters faced a range of economic pressures. Many landlords delayed repairs or rebuilding, especially in low-income areas, which are seen as less profitable. Some used the disaster as an opportunity to renovate and target higher-paying tenants, further shrinking the supply of affordable rentals. Within five years of the Hurricane, the stock of mid-priced housing units in New Orleans had declined by more than two-thirds, pushing the median rent from $689 in 2004 to $876 in 2009. These rising costs hit Black residents hardest, forcing many to leave and permanently altering the city’s character.

Even those who could afford to return to New Orleans and buy a new home after Katrina faced soaring prices—up 14% in the first year alone—as demand outpaced the reduced housing supply. In addition, homeowners’ insurance premiums jumped 22% in Louisiana between 2005 and 2007, adding yet another barrier to homeownership.

The Flood Exclusion Trap

Then, as now, and to the surprise of many victims of the Hurricane, standard home insurance policies in the US did not protect homeowners from floodwater damage. This means residents must buy additional flood insurance to be protected in the event of a disaster like Katrina.

New Orleans residents had among the highest participation rates in the country in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal government program that provides flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and businesses. However, the majority of residents in areas affected by Katrina had not purchased flood insurance. Uninsured property losses due to flooding were economically devastating, exceeding an estimated $41.1 billion (USD 100 billion in 2024 prices). In addition, the NFIP incurred some $16.1 billion in losses and a deficit exceeding $18 billion as a direct result of the flooding caused by Katrina.

Even for New Orleanians with flood insurance, coverage likely fell short. Policies typically covered about $152,000—the city’s median house price at the time. But this was rarely enough to replace the damaged household contents or to pay residents for temporary housing while their home was uninhabitable.

More and more, whether people hit by climate-driven storms get anything from their insurers depends not on the fact that their homes were damaged, but on how they were damaged.

While the standard home insurance policy does not cover water damage from a hurricane, it does cover wind damage. This gap left residents and insurers arguing about whether Katrina’s destruction to their homes was caused by its high-velocity winds or the flooding that followed, with multiple lawsuits challenging the validity of flood exclusions in insurance policies. Even before the flooding receded and residents of Louisiana and Mississippi could start to rebuild their lives, courts were inundated with litigation, with about 6,600 insurance-related lawsuits being instigated in the US District Court. Yet, Katrina’s destructive flooding was driven by a storm surge powered by the hurricane’s high winds—the very peril homeowners’ policies are supposed to cover.

On September 15, 2005, Mississippi’s Attorney General Jim Hood filed a case against five of the largest homeowners’ insurers in the state. Attorney General Hood sought a court declaration that the flood exclusion provision in standard home insurance policies was “void and unenforceable” and in violation “of the public policy of the State of Mississippi.” However, in that case and others, courts ruled that the flood exclusions were spelled out clearly in homeowners’ insurance policies and did not violate public policy.

The exclusion of water damage from insurance coverage remains a present issue for existing homeowners. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, since 1996, 99% of US counties have been impacted by flooding, but only 4% of homeowners have flood insurance. And, more importantly, over half (56%) of American homeowners don’t know that their home insurance policy excludes flood damage. As hurricane season intensifies, many homeowners will be shocked to learn that their insurance does not cover flood loss.

Insurers’ Favorite Loophole: Wind vs. Water Damage

After Katrina, some insurers exploited the false dichotomy between wind and water damage, classifying losses as water damage to shift liability onto homeowners or the NFIP.

In 2013, a federal jury in Mississippi found that State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. defrauded the NFIP after avoiding covering a policyholder’s wind losses from Katrina by blaming the damage on storm surge, which is covered by federal flood insurance. Almost 10 years later, in August 2022, State Farm settled the case, agreeing to pay $100 million to the federal government.

State Farm was not the only insurer engaged in nefarious behavior, attributing Hurricane Katrina damage to flooding instead of wind. In oral argument before the Mississippi Supreme Court in 2009, insurance company USAA publicly admitted that it shifted its own costs to the NFIP and thus taxpayers.

The false dichotomy between the wind and water damage resulting from a hurricane remains nebulous. The damage caused by Hurricane Ian in Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina in 2022, with its record-high wind speeds, generated $63 billion in private insurance claims. In contrast, 2018’s Hurricane Florence primarily caused water—not wind—damage in North and South Carolina, leaving uninsured flood losses estimated at nearly $20 billion and letting private insurers largely escape liability. More and more, whether people hit by climate-driven storms get anything from their insurers depends not on the fact that their homes were damaged, but on how they were damaged.

Regulators Must Act: People over Profit

Hurricane Katrina exposed widespread gaps in home insurance coverage that persist today. In the 20 years since Katrina, unmitigated climate change has fueled rising temperatures and made extreme weather events such as hurricanes both more frequent and more severe. As storms grow costlier and more destructive, insurers have raised home insurance premiums and declined to renew many policies, leaving households with fewer options for protection. This escalating cycle has produced today’s insurance crisis.

Federal and state lawmakers must respond. The federal government must reform the NFIP to improve federal flood insurance and ensure it provides affordable coverage for more hazards. At the same time, the NFIP should do more to support community-based mitigation. States, meanwhile, must use their regulatory authority over insurance markets to address skyrocketing insurance costs and growing coverage gaps resulting from mounting climate change impacts.

Regulators should adopt legislation, like New York’s Insure Our Future bill, to prohibit insurers from underwriting new fossil fuel projects, require them to phase out support for existing projects, and force insurers to divest from fossil fuel companies.

The insurance industry cannot ignore its role in fueling the very crisis it now faces. Climate change-induced disasters are indisputably driven by fossil fuel emissions. And insurance companies facilitate climate change by investing in fossil fuel companies and underwriting fossil fuel projects. US insurance companies have investments of more than $500 billion infossil fuel-related assets, including coal, oil, and gas. In 2022 alone, insurers worldwide collected $21 billion in premiums for underwriting fossil fuel projects—directly enabling their expansion.

Regulators should adopt legislation, like New York’s Insure Our Future bill, to prohibit insurers from underwriting new fossil fuel projects, require them to phase out support for existing projects, and force insurers to divest from fossil fuel companies. Without bold action, insurers will continue to profit from climate destruction while leaving families and communities to bear the costs.


© 2024 Center for International Environmental Law


Charles Slidders
Charles Slidders is the senior attorney for financial strategies in CIEL’s Climate & Energy Program.
Full Bio >

Alexandra Colon-Amil
Alexandra Colon-Amil is the communications campaign specialist at the Center for International Environmental Law.
Full Bio >

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BUSH KATRINA

DEREGULATION

Why We Must Defend the Marine Mammal Protection Act

Kirsten Donald, a marine biologist, educator, and advocate with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center, explains why the animals she works with need more protections, not fewer.


A male and female northern elephant seal are seen in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary in California.

(Photo by Jan Roletto/ NOAA)

David Helvarg
Aug 31, 2025

Common Dreams


In July MAGA Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska introduced draft legislation that aims to gut the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act at a time when marine mammals are at greater risk than they've been in decades. It would get rid of protections against "incidental takes" from ship strikes, fishing gear entanglement, or deafening sounds from oil exploration, leaving it illegal only to directly shoot or harpoon a mammal.

Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Resources Committee, calls these proposed changes "a death sentence" for marine mammals. I decided to have a conversation with someone who deals with marine mammals every day to help clarify the situation. Kirsten Donald is a marine biologist, educator, and advocate with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center (PMMC) in Laguna Beach, California.

It's one of California's leading marine mammal rescue centers where they care for, rehabilitate, and release hundreds of sick and injured animals each year. Before coming to California, Kirsten worked for 18 years at the Dolphin Research Center (DRC) in the Florida Keys. In her 30-year-career she's worked with whales, dolphins, manatees, harbor seals, elephant seals, and sea lions. So thanks, Kirsten.

Kristen Donald (KD): A pleasure. Ever since I was a little girl, I got the thrill of being able to go to the ocean because my family had lived in Maryland for a time and I was just utterly fascinated and I just remember seeing dolphins swimming by and being absolutely enamored by them (and wanting to study marine mammal science).

And then, initially when I went to college, I didn't know what I wanted to do. I was kind of lost and went into communications. And when I was about 26, I had a midlife crisis early and went back to career counseling and realized that I needed to be back in science and reminded myself that I loved animals. I happened to hear about this place called the Dolphin Research Center that offered a program called the Dolphin Lab, which allowed people to come down for a week and interact with their dolphin colony there. So, I traveled all the way down to Florida and I just fell in love with the dolphins and the mission to educate the public to be more compassionate to the issues that we face with these guys in the wild. And after a bit they asked me to apply for a job and that was in 1997 and I've been doing it ever since.

David Helvarg (DH): And the Dolphin Research Center, just so people understand, it's not SeaWorld, it's not all about entertainment?

KD: Oh, no. The, dolphin Research Center has some of the highest standards in the world for the care of the animals.They are an educational, nonprofit, and research facility that has a colony of dolphins that were born there mostly and some retired from other facilities. They also had some that stranded as babies and needed homes because they could not be put back in the wild. And so now the dolphins participate in everything from interactions with humans so people can realize that these animals should be conserved to a significant amount of research on the capabilities of these animals, both acoustically and cognitively so that we can understand the other species in the ocean and the parts they play in the ecosystem. It's a really wonderful place. It's all about the dolphins first.

The stranding coordinator came up to me and said, "You're the only person I have left. Here's a net, here's a kennel (like a dog carrier). Take the car and go to this beach." And I'm like, "I've never done this before."

I remember whenever we would do a session, you come down and if you had something in mind and the dolphins are like, "No," you had to change gears. That was your job, you gotta figure out what they want to do because it's not about making them do anything. But the thing was we made everything a game and exciting and fun. And so, the dolphins were always excited to come over and play. And really the drive behind it is the fact that we are not the owners of this planet. We share it.

I also got involved a bit in the research, whether it was taking behavioral research observations or later on developing a field research program on bottlenosed dolphins in the middle Keys, which had never been done before. And they're still doing that and have expanded that program today, which is really phenomenal. I became the director of education. And I became the director of the College of Marine Mammal Professions, which basically took all of the different Dolphin Lab weeklong classes… to create our own college and be able to grant an associate's degree in marine mammal behavior and care training, which was the first one in the world.

DH: So, you were 18 years there in Florida. What got you connected with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center?

KD: At the time I'd been at DRC for 18 years and believe me, it was the hardest change I ever had to make because all of those dolphins were very much a part of my family. But my daughter was growing up and I wanted her to have more opportunities. The Keys are kind of rural in a way and all of a sudden, this job popped up at Pacific Marine Mammal Center to run the Education Department.

And so, I decided to check it out and it reminded me very much of DRC when I first started. When I started at DRC, there were only 30 employees. And by the time I left there was over a 100 and even more volunteers. When I came to PMMC, we only had about 15 people at the time and just a handful of education programs. And I could see that there were so many opportunities to widen the educational opportunities and really reach a more diverse audience. Also, it gave me the chance to learn more about pinnipeds…We're dealing with the problems that are happening right now in the ocean and so, PMMC rescues typically in any given year, anywhere from like 100 to 200 pinnipeds and a few cetaceans as well.

DH: That would be seals, sea lions, and dolphins.

KD: Exactly. Seals, sea lions, and dolphins. And there have been years also where it was crazy. Like my first year happened to be the worst year on record for strandings. That was back in 2015. And from 2013 to 2016, we had an unusual mortality event because of that warm water blob (a massive marine heatwave known as "the blob") overlapping with the El Niño (cyclical Pacific warming). The waters were ridiculously warm.

And PMMC rescued over 500 animals, much more than we'd typically rescue. And it was due to the fact that since the warm water is there, the fish like colder water. So, they would either go deeper or further out to sea or further up north. And the pups that are on the Channel Islands (breeding colonies off Central California) couldn't swim that far in order to get nutrition. In addition, the mothers that are tied to the islands can't swim very far away because they've got to nurse their pups. And so, it became a situation where mothers were abandoning pups. Pups weren't getting enough to eat, and so there was just a constant influx of these animals.

And it was crazy because my second week at PMMC all the trucks are out, all the rescuers are out. And then the stranding coordinator came up to me and said, "You're the only person I have left. Here's a net, here's a kennel (like a dog carrier). Take the car and go to this beach." And I'm like, "I've never done this before."

"It's fine. You just pick them up and put them in the kennel, you know?" And I'm like, "Okay, I'll give it a try." And so, I went and the sea lion happened to be a very small pup that was on a pier, San Clemente Pier, curled up. Didn't even move when I picked him up, he was so emaciated. And so, I popped him in the kennel and then this lady ran up to me and she's like, "There's another one over there."

And he is really skinny. And you know, I'm from a different background in terms of when you work with animals that are in human-managed care, you introduce them slowly, you know, you let them get to know each other. And I only had one kennel and I'm like, how could I put another animal in this kennel? I can't do that. What should I do? So, I call her and she goes, "Oh no, just get them both. They don't care. Just shove them in. They'll be fine."

DH: This is triage. This is emergency room type activity?

KD: Yeah. And this is also me not being as familiar at the time with sea lion behavior because they do lie over each other. They create piles, especially as pups. And so, this one was going in and out of the water and I had to actually get the net and get between it and the water so I could net it and then put it in the kennel (with the first pup) and bring it back. So, that was my very first rescue, and I named the animals Yin and Yang because they were very different (personalities). And it was quite the experience.

DH: And as you say, it was a traumatic time because the blob was the worst of these major marine heatwaves that we've experienced linked to climate change. So, there was loss of prey, there was starvation at the time. And these marine heatwaves have also supercharged Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) that can also poison marine mammals.

KD: Exactly. And that's what's happened. This year we have had the worst harmful algal bloom on record. These animals are struggling right now with regard to climate change as well as plastics and chemicals in the ocean. I can give you two really good examples. Number one the gray whale, which was actually a huge success under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). It was one of the major successes of the MMPA. They were the first large whale species to be delisted (taken off the Endangered Species Act list) after whaling (was banned). They were almost decimated, and they came back 27,000 strong. And between 2019 and 2023, their population has plummeted down to 13,000 animals. So, half the population is gone and scientists looked into it and discovered that this was very much connected to climate change.

Basically, what was happening is that since the (polar) ice cover was receding earlier and the algae that grows underneath it, instead of falling to the bottom and feeding the amphipods (tiny shrimp-like crustaceans that the whales feed on) the ice would recede. The fish go in and eat up all the algae and the amphipods die. And these guys (the migrating gray whales) go up there to eat the pods but there's not enough up there. And so, they spend longer and longer trying to eat, expending more and more energy. But they're still coming back emaciated. And they are dying in droves all up and down the coast from Canada to Mexico.

I think that's what everything going on in society is telling us, that people really need to step up and get involved.

So, it was an international event. And actually, they closed the Unusual Mortality Event (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration designation) after 2023. And just this year we are already having a ton of these animals stranded up north around the Monterey Bay area, starting again. It's considered an unusual mortality event because it's something that we normally don't see and is not a natural cycle. So, they thought it was over in 2023, but just this year, in 2025, it's begun again. So, these guys (gray whales) are not out of trouble. In fact, if they can lose half their population in just a few years, this is the worst time to take away their protections.

The other example is California sea lions that breed around the Channel Islands. And one of the studies that our veterinarian did was in looking at the high levels of DDT in these sea lions because there's DDT that was dumped back in the 60s near those islands (by the Montrose Chemical Corp. and others via LA storm drains).

And DDT is a very toxic persistent organic pollutant, which is basically a fertilizer but it stays in the environment for thousands of years. These animals are accumulating it through nursing as well as the food that they eat. And what we've discovered is that they will develop cancer because the DDT interacts with a herpes virus, which pretty much they all have, and is a catalyst for cancer. And so about 25% of the adult patients that come through PMMC are diagnosed with terminal cancer unfortunately, and that's the highest rate of cancer in any mammal on the planet. So again, we're dealing with, human impacts on these species and so they need the protections. In fact, they need more protections than the MMPA provides currently.

DH: We had a few decades where the Marine Mammal Protection Act was working well. The Florida manatees went from 1,000 to 10,000, right?

KD: The Marine Mammal Protection Act is great. It has helped a lot of species, but there are still species that need even more protection like the North Atlantic right whale. There's only 370 of them left. And the changes that are proposed (in the MMPA) actually will delay any action to help them by reducing entanglements (in fishing gear) or ship strikes which are the two major things that are hurting their population. And they don't have 10 years to wait because they've lost half their population since 2017. So, you can see the trajectory that they're already on.

DH: They're trying to roll back all environmental protections. With something like NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, people may not know what it's about, but with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it's right there in the name. In the 1990s popular movements got us to dolphin-free tuna where they used to put the nets around schools of dolphin knowing tuna where underneath them and they'd kill hundreds of thousands of dolphins along with the tuna. Under this so-called MAGA "reform" of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, there's nothing to stop them from doing that again.

KD: Exactly, and we do need the power of the public right now. I think that's what everything going on in society is telling us, that people really need to step up and get involved.

DH: People need to not only volunteer with the Pacific Marine Mammal Center and other marine animal rescue centers for example but also to call their congresspeople and senators and say, "This is not acceptable."

KD: Exactly, that's something that we talk about all the time, and this is why I am such a big proponent of education, helping people understand that they have power, they have a voice. To stand up and call your congressmen if everybody is doing that and letting them know that they care about these issues. If you're a congressperson and not listening to your constituents, you're probably not going to get reelected. And you're there to represent the people's interest. And so, we need people to express that interest.

DH: And again, there's this disingenuous argument being put forward by Republican sponsors of rolling back the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, which is these laws have worked so well that these animals are no longer at risk. And this is simply bunk. Like who are some of your patients right now?

KD: Well, actually our patients are all gone right now. We're very excited. We had a really tough year with the unusual mortality event we went through, with the harmful algal bloom because I gotta tell you, it was very rough. Literally most of the animals that came in, or at least half of them, had to be euthanized because they had too many toxins in their system that damaged their brain. Because that's what happens with domoic acid poisoning. It's produced by the algae, and the fish eat it. And then the sea lions eat the fish and get concentrated doses and that toxin goes to the brain, damages it, and it doesn't allow them to be able to navigate spatially. They do things they're not normally doing…

DH: Wandering up on the highways. There was a lot of publicity recently about a sea lion that was biting surfers.

KD: Exactly. People were up in arms about sea lions biting and they don't normally do that. They normally leave you alone. But the animals were so out of their minds because their brains were damaged, that they were being aggressive. And so, there were quite a number, a large number of animals that we had to euthanize. And what was even sadder is that the majority of California sea lions that came in should be doing what they do every year—breeding.

The biggest help that we can provide is standing up for the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act because they're the two strongest, most important (animal protection) acts that have been passed in the United States.

And so many were pregnant. And they were not yet close to term. They were about three-quarters of the way through their pregnancies. But they were having to euthanize these females and in some cases, they'd have to induce abortions to try to save the females because there are so many toxins in the amniotic fluid that the female can reabsorb those unless we induce abortion.

And so, what's even sadder is when they would induce these abortions, some of the pups would try to take a breath, even though that they were not viable yet, they were not fully developed. And so, literally as the babies were coming out, they were brought to the veterinarian who then had to turn around and euthanize them.

It was a really traumatic year for our animal care. And it's really worrisome that again, this is the fourth year in a row that we've had a harmful algal bloom, and this was the worst on record. What are we in store for in the years to come? That's a real concern of ours. So, yes, it was a tough year.

DH: And again, at the federal level, we're both denying the reality of climate change and now trying to deny the reality that marine mammals are in serious trouble.

KD: Right. And when you look at things happening in the ocean, there's no denying climate change anymore. There's absolutely none. It's happening. It's affecting the animals. They're showing it to us. It's sad when we have these animals. We get them back up to speed, they're ready to go out, they're healthy. And then we realize we're releasing them into a damaged home, a broken home that we need to help fix because we broke it. And so, it's really personal to us.

DH: Okay. I really appreciate the work you're doing, and so let's end on a happy note. What was your last release?

KD: The last release I was on, it was great because I got to go with my entire staff and with some animal care people out on a boat release, because sometimes it's better to release the animals off boats (rather than from beaches), especially if they're like adult animals.

We get them further away from the beach so they don't present a hazard to people. That's where they're normally meant to be anyway, further out in the ocean. And so, we had three different animals, and you would basically move the crate up to the edge of the boat and open the kennel and they look around, they dunk their head in the water and look around and then slowly climb in.

And then you just do one after the other. And it's sometimes funny because I've seen elephant seals do the same thing where one will like stick his head in the water, then look at his buddy and wait for the buddy to go in. And then look in the water again and make sure, I'm thinking he's making sure there's no sharks, you know, let his buddy go in first.

So, it's neat and sometimes they'll look back at us too you know, and we like to think it's a "Thank you for helping me." And then they just swim away and do what they're meant to be doing. So, it's really gratifying to see them go home, but it gives us even more motivation to try to help get word out about these issues so that people can take action in their own lives to help, because there are all these simple things that we can do… The biggest help that we can provide is standing up for the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act because they're the two strongest, most important (animal protection) acts that have been passed in the United States and that also are unique.

This story is based on my interview with Kirstin Donald for Blue Frontier's Rising Tide Ocean Podcast that aired on August 25, 2025.

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

David Helvarg
David Helvarg is an author, former war correspondent, and licensed private investigator.
Full Bio >

Is the Pentagon Spending Taxpayer Money on Alien Tech?

Too over the top? Perhaps, but the Pentagon is so secretive that the public is left to speculate. Congress must hold the DOD accountability for how it uses its funds.

Ellen Brown
Aug 31, 2025

Common Dreams

The US federal debt has now passed $37 trillion and is growing at the rate of $1 trillion every five months. Interest on the debt exceeds $1 trillion annually, second only to Social Security in the federal budget. The military outlay is also close to $1 trillion, consuming nearly half of the discretionary budget.

As a sovereign nation, the United States could avoid debt altogether by simply paying for the budget deficit with Treasury-issued “Greenbacks,” as Abraham Lincoln’s government did. But I have written on that before (see here and here), so this article will focus on that other elephant in the room, the Department of Defense (DOD).

Under the Constitution, the military budget should not be paid at all, because the Pentagon has never passed an audit. Expenditures of public funds without a public accounting violate Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which provides:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The Pentagon failed its seventh financial audit in 2024, with 63% of its $4.1 trillion in assets—approximately $2.58 trillion—untracked. From 1998 to 2015, it failed to account for $21 trillion in spending.

As concerning today as the financial burden is the wielding of secret power. US President Dwight Eisenhower warned in his 1961 farewell address: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

President John F. Kennedy echoed that concern, warning in 1961 that “secret societies” and excessive secrecy are “repugnant in a free and open society,” threatening democracy by withholding truth from the public. He warned that excessive concealment, even for national security, undermines democracy by denying citizens the facts needed to hold power accountable. “No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed,” he said. If untracked billions fund classified programs, citizens are left powerless, governed by a shadow entity answerable to no one.

Those concerns persist today. On August 13, 2025, Joe Rogan interviewed US Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who leads a House Oversight Committee focused on government transparency regarding various topics, including UAPs (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, formerly UFOs). Luna said the committee had been formed after she and two other congresspeople were denied access at Eglin Air Force Base to information on UAPs provided by whistleblowers. The problem, she said, was that Congress was supposed to represent the public and be an investigative body for it, “and you have unelected people operating basically in secrecy… I think this goes all the way back even to JFK, with how they basically have operated outside of the purview of Congress and basically… have gone rogue…”

The main gate into the Area 51 United States Air Force Nellis Testing Range is shown in Lincoln County, Nevada.
(Photo by David James Henry/ Wikipedia)

A Behemoth Without Oversight

The Department of Defense’s $885.7 billion budget for 2025, approved by the House of Representatives, dwarfs the military spending of China ($296 billion), Russia ($84 billion), and the next eight nations combined. Managing $4.1 trillion in assets—from aircraft carriers to secret drones—along with $4.3 trillion in liabilities (e.g. personnel costs and pensions), the federal government’s largest agency oversees a military empire spanning over 4,790 sites worldwide. Yet it operates with minimal oversight.

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 mandated audits for all federal agencies, but the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 delayed the Pentagon’s first department-wide audit to 2018 due to its unwieldy size, its decentralized systems, and its outdated software. The DOD has failed every audit since that time. In 2024, it could not account for its $824 billion FY 2024 budget, with 2,500 new audit issues identified. Of 24 reporting entities, only nine received clean opinions, while 15 received disclaimers due to insufficient data. In fact the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has flagged DOD financial management as high-risk for waste, fraud, and abuse ever since 1995.

A 2016 report in The Nation highlighted $640 for a toilet seat and $7,600 for a coffee pot.

As observed in a January 2019 article in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi, openly secret budgets were first legalized in 1949 with the passage of the Central Intelligence Agency Act, which exempted that newly created agency from public financial disclosure. The act stated, “The sums made available to the Agency may be expended without regard to the provisions of law and regulations related to the expenditure of Government funds.”

The aim of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 was to curb billions of dollars said to be lost each year through fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement of public budgets. Despite the mandated audits for all federal agencies, the DOD—the only major agency without a clean audit—has received $3.9 trillion in congressionally approved funding since 2018. “Every year that members of Congress vote to boost Pentagon spending with no strings attached,” observed federal budgeting expert Lindsay Kosgharian, “they choose to spend untold billions on weapons and war with no accountability.”

The Audit the Pentagon Act of 2023, backed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), proposes docking 0.5–1% of budgets for audit failures, but the measure has not received a vote.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched with promises to strip waste, fraud, and abuse from federal agencies, has conspicuously sidestepped the Pentagon. A June 2025 article titled “Why DOGE Was Always Doomed: The Pentagon Problem,” points out that the DOGE mission was seriously hampered by the Pentagon’s exemption from auditing:
In FY 2024, total discretionary spending was about $1.6 trillion. Of that, the Pentagon alone received $842 billion. In other words, it got more funding than all other departments combined. You read that right: one (very special) department received more than all the rest put together.

Funds that are not accounted for divert resources from critical needs like troop readiness, healthcare, and infrastructure. Overbilling by contractors enriches corporations while taxpayers foot the bill. And the lack of transparency erodes public confidence, as Americans struggle with domestic priorities.

The Missing $21 Trillion: Fraud, Waste, or Something Worse?

The Pentagon’s audit failures mask not just inefficiency and waste but pervasive fraud and corruption. Between 1998 and 2015, Inspector General reports show that the DOD could not account for $21 trillion in spending—65% of federal spending during that period. For perspective, the entire US GDP in 2015 was $18.2 trillion. In 2023, the agency failed to document 63% of its $3.8 trillion in assets, up from 61% the prior year. A 2015 DOD report identifying $125 billion in administrative waste was suppressed to protect budget increases.

There is plenty of verified waste to support the case for mismanagement. Military contractors, who receive over half of the Pentagon’s budget, are a major culprit. The F-35 program, managed by Lockheed Martin, was reported in 2021 to be $165 billion over budget, with $220 billion in spare parts poorly tracked. A 2023 CBS News investigation found that contractors routinely overcharged by 40-50%, with some markups reaching 4,451%. A 2016 report in The Nation highlighted $640 for a toilet seat and $7,600 for a coffee pot.

It is no longer even necessary to cover up fraud and corruption by wildly inflated prices. In 2017, former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) official Catherine Austin Fitts collaborated with Mark Skidmore, an economics professor at Michigan State University, to document the missing $21 trillion in unsupported journal voucher adjustments at the DOD and HUD. In a June 2025 article published in Fitts’ journal The Solari Report titled “Should We Care about Secrecy in Financial Reporting?,” Dr. Skidmore discussed how the government responded to the publication of his research with Fitts. Its response was to immediately eliminate the paper trail leading to its covert financial operations. In particular: “Pentagon officials turned to the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) for advice. Several months later, FASAB posted a new document (FASAB 56), which recommended that the government be allowed to misstate and move funds to conceal expenditures if it is deemed necessary to protect national security interests.”

Fitts remarked, “The White House and Congress just opened a pipeline into the back of the US Treasury, and announced to every private army, mercenary, and thug in the world that we are open for business.”

Speculation Run Rampant

In a widely-viewed interview by Tucker Carlson on April 28, 2025, Fitts expressed her belief that the missing trillions had been funneled into classified projects involving advanced technologies, including massive underground bunkers to protect elites from a “near-extinction event;” and that they were using advanced energy systems and hidden transit networks possibly linked to extraterrestrial tech. She discussed “interdimensional intelligence” and a secret space program linked to a “breakaway civilization.” The latter term was coined by UFO researcher Richard Dolan and is defined by Google as “a theoretical, hidden society that operates outside of mainstream civilization with advanced technology, often linked to UFO phenomena and secret space programs.”

In a Danny Jones interview in May 2025, Fitts alluded to Deep Underground Military Bases (“DUMBs”), perhaps used for “advanced technology or off-world operations.” Existence of these bases was confirmed two decades earlier by whistleblower Philip Schneider, a US government geologist and engineer involved in their construction. In his last presentation in 1995, Schneider said there were 131 of these cities connected underground by mag-lev rail, built at a cost of $17-26 billion each. According to his biographer, Schneider was assassinated in 1996 by a US intelligence agency for disclosing the government cover-up of UFOs and aliens.

Too over the top? Perhaps, but the Pentagon is so secretive that the public is left to speculate. Are we dealing with a scenario like that in such Hollywood movies as the 1997 film Men in Black, in which hidden forces—human or alien—control our fate?

As taxpayers footing the bill, we are entitled to know not only where our money is being spent but who is really in charge of our government.

The Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) contends that no verifiable evidence supports extraterrestrial activity. But other prominent figures support the UFO-UAP narrative. In 2017, the New York Times exposed the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), said to be a $22 million DOD initiative run by Luis Elizondo investigating UAPs from 2007-2012.

According to BBC News, Haim Eshed, former head of Israel’s space security program, claimed in a 2020 interview with the Yediot Aharonot newspaper that the US government has an “agreement” with a “Galactic Federation” of extraterrestrials. He alleged aliens have been in contact with the US and Israel, with secret underground bases where they collaborate on experiments. Eshed claimed the United States was on the verge of disclosing this under President Donald Trump but withheld it to avoid “mass hysteria.” The claims were unverified but provocative.

In recent years, Congress has increased its focus on UAPs, with high-profile hearings in 2022, 2023, and 2024. In 2023, whistleblower David Grusch, a former intelligence officer, testified that the US possesses “non-human origin” craft and “dead pilots,” based on classified briefings. On November 13, 2024, the House Oversight Committee’s hearing, “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” featured testimony from Luis Elizondo, retired Navy Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, journalist Michael Shellenberger, and former NASA official Michael Gold, who claimed the US possesses UAP technologies and has harmed personnel in secret retrieval programs. Shellenberger alleged that a covert “Immaculate Constellation” program hides UAP data from Congress.

Some lawmakers, including Rep. Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), continue to criticize Pentagon secrecy and to push for transparency. In May 2024, Burchett introduced the UAP Transparency Act, requiring the declassification of all UAP-related documents within 270 days. He stated:
This bill isn’t all about finding little green men or flying saucers, it’s about forcing the Pentagon and federal agencies to be transparent with the American people. I’m sick of hearing bureaucrats telling me these things don’t exist while we’ve spent millions of taxpayer dollars on studying them for decades.
Secrecy Undermines Democracy

With $21 trillion unaccounted for historically, $165 billion in F-35 overruns, and $125 billion in buried waste, the DOD’s financial mismanagement needs urgent reform. Congress is primarily responsible for overseeing the DOD budget, exercising its constitutional “power of the purse” under Article 1 of the US Constitution. So why isn’t it enforcing this mandate?

The chief excuse given is the need for secrecy for security reasons, but a congressional committee could be given access to the Pentagon’s financial data in closed session in order to exercise public oversight and enforce accountability. Other factors are obviously at play, including political influence, lobbying, campaign contributions from the defense sector, and a lack of penalties for noncompliance.

To restore accountability, Congress needs to enforce the Audit the Pentagon Act, modernize DOD systems, and investigate contractors profiting from lax oversight. UAP transparency is also critical, whether to debunk myths or uncover truths.

As taxpayers footing the bill, we are entitled to know not only where our money is being spent but who is really in charge of our government. The Pentagon’s secrecy and lack of accountability could be shielding anything from contractor fraud to UAP programs and alien alliances. If there is information so secret that even our elected representatives don’t have access to it, who does have access? Is there a secret government above the government we know? Without fiscal transparency and accountability, we can no longer call ourselves a democracy, as JFK warned.

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


Ellen Brown
Ellen Brown is an attorney and founder of the Public Banking Institute. She is the author of twelve books, including the best-selling "Web of Debt," and "The Public Bank Solution," which explores successful public banking models historically and globally.
Full Bio >

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