Can a New ‘New Deal’ Wipe Out Corporate Control of the Democratic Party?

WALL ST DEM'S ARE THE REAL GOP

The exploding popularity of progressive politicians and the policies they embrace is not an anomaly. It’s a signpost.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and US Senate candidate Graham Platner are seen at a rally on September 1, 2025 in Portland, Maine.
(Photo by Anna Bahr/Friends of Bernie Sanders)

Thom Hartmann
Dec 22, 2025

Common Dreams

The media is freaking out over a new Rasmussen poll that found:
“A majority of voters under 40 want a democratic socialist to win the White House in the next presidential election.
”… 51% of Likely U.S. Voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election. Thirty-six percent (36%) don’t want a democratic socialist to win in 2028, while 17% are not sure. …
“Among the youngest cohort (ages 18-24) of voters, 57% want a democratic socialist to win the next presidential election…
”Among those who voted for Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election, 78% would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election…“ (emphasis added)

I was on Ali Velshi’s MSNOW show yesterday morning discussing this, along with Michael Green who recently wrote a thought-provoking article about how the official poverty line in America is completely out-of-date and out of touch with the needs of most Americans. I shared a few statistics from my recent book The Hidden History of the American Dream: the Demise of the Middle Class and How to Rescue Our Future:When, in 1957, my dad bought the house I grew up in, the average cost of a single-family home in America was about 2.2 times the average annual wage. Today it’s more than ten times the average wage.
When my Boomer generation was the same age as today’s Millennials, we owned a bit over 22% of the nation’s wealth; Millennials today control only about 4% of the country’s wealth (and it’s the same for Zoomers).
From the 1930s right up until the Reagan Revolution, it was possible for seniors to live comfortably on Social Security alone; Reagan undid that with his “reforms” so today that’s nearly impossible.
When I ran my first seriously successful business in the early 1970s, it cost me around $35/month for comprehensive health insurance for each of my 18 employees; at that time hospitals and health insurance companies were required by Michigan law (where I lived; most other states were identical) to be run as non-profits. Today, health insurance can be as much as one-fifth of a company’s payroll expense.
When Reagan came into office in 1981, a single wage earner could support a family with a middle-class lifestyle, and fully 65% of us were in the middle class (up from around 20% in the 1930s). Today, after 44 years of Reaganomics, it takes two full-time people to achieve the same status, which triggers huge childcare expenses, which is part of why only 43% of us are middle class .
RECOMMENDED...


Autopsy Says Corporate Capture, Support for Genocide Were Key Factors in Democrats’ 2024 Disaster

FDR’s great — and successful — Democratic Socialist experiment following the Republican Great Depression was to drive the economy from the bottom up, reversing the “Horse and Sparrow” trickle-down economics and deregulation of the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations that provoked the Great Crash.

He did that by:Expanding the notion of the commons — the stuff we all collectively own and is administered or funded and regulated by government — to include free public education nationwide (and cheap college), old-age retirement (Social Security), and public power and transportation systems (Tennessee Valley Authority, federal support for local transit, roads and highways).
Legalizing unions, an effort that was so successful that when Reagan came into office fully a third of us had good union jobs and, because they set the local wage floors, two-thirds of Americans had the equivalent of a union wage and benefit package.
Establishing a minimum wage on which a single worker could raise a family of three and still stay above the federal poverty level (today’s federal minimum wage is $7.25: adjusted with the Consumer Price Index, that $1.60 minimum wage in 1968 is equivalent to about $14.90 an hour in 2025 dollars).

In the years since, we’ve continued to expand the commons by establishing national single-payer healthcare systems for low-income people (Medicaid) and retired people (Medicare), both of which came out of LBJ’s Democratic Socialist program that he called The Great Society.

Meanwhile, Republicans and a few neoliberal Democrats have pushed back against these Democratic Socialist programs that made the American middle class the first in the history of the world to exceed more than half the population.Reagan’s war on unions has cut our union membership down to well under 10% in the private sector.
His gutting federal funding for education has exploded college costs to the point where three generations are saddled with over $2 trillion in debt that can’t be discharged by bankruptcy.
Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich (from 74% down to 27%) and corporations tripled the national debt (from $800 billion to $2.4 trillion) just in his eight years; since then the four GW Bush and Trump tax cuts have, when combined with Reagan’s, produced a $38 trillion national debt so big that we now spend more on servicing their debt than we do on our defense budget or would on administering a national healthcare system.

Back in the 1940s, after the incredible success of the New Deal, President Roosevelt wanted to further expand the commons by expanding the scope of his Democratic Socialist programs. Just before he died, he proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” that included:“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the nation’s industries, shops, farms, or mines. (Unionization and an above-poverty-level minimum wage.)
“The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation. (Ditto and government as the employer of last resort.)
“The right of every farmer to raise and sell products at a return that gives his family a decent living. (Don’t manipulate farm prices with stupid tariff wars, etc., and make the government the purchaser of last resort.)
“The right of every businessperson, large and small, to trade free from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. (Break up the giant corporations and encourage average people to start small businesses, including with loan supports.)
“The right of every family to a decent home. (Today this would mean no more corporations, hedge funds, and foreign billionaires owning single-family homes to squeeze us dry by jacking up rents.)
“The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health. (FDR favored a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare for All.)
“The right to protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment (i.e., robust Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance).
“The right to a good education.” (Free or inexpensive college, quality public schools in every community.)

Much to the chagrin of my Republican-activist father, my grandfather (a 1917 Norwegian immigrant) frequently and proudly described himself as a socialist. When I asked him what he meant, he always pointed me to FDR, the New Deal, and his proposed Second Bill of Rights.

And here we are again.

My grandfather’s generation saw up-close and firsthand the tax-cutting and deregulation binge of the Roaring 20’s (which were only “roaring” for the morbidly rich), and then had the lived experience of watching FDR put the country back together and create the world’s first widespread middle class.

Millennials and Zoomers today are seeing the same thing, between the Bush Housing Crash of 2008, the botched Covid Crash of 2020, and the GOP’s relentless program to drive the wealth of the nation into the money bins of the billionaires who own that party.

They see the example of most European countries, where the commons includes college (many will actually pay you a stipend to attend), healthcare, and daycare/preschool, and union density is often well above 80%. Housing is subsidized or heavily regulated, leading several to have essentially ended homelessness. Giant corporate monopolies are prohibited and local small businesses are encouraged.

Europeans call these programs Democratic Socialism or social democracy, and young Americans clearly are enthusiastic about bringing the “European Dream” to this country.

My sense is that — much like in the 1930s — a significant majority of Americans are sick of the neoliberal “let the rich run things because they know best” bullshit that Republicans, “Tech Bros,” and a shrinking minority of on-the-take Democratic politicians embrace.

Meanwhile, nobody’s sure why the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is refusing to release the autopsy they did of the 2024 election, producing speculation it may have uncovered examples of Russian and Republican manipulation of both voters and the vote, but I’m guessing the real reason is that the neoliberals who largely run the DNC saw feedback that reflected the Rasmussen poll I opened this article with.

The exploding popularity of progressive politicians from Zorhan Mamdani to Bernie Sanders, Jasmine Crockett, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren’t an anomaly; they’re a signpost to both electoral and governing success for the next generation of genuinely progressive Democratic politicians.

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


Thom Hartmann
Thom Hartmann is a talk-show host and the author of "The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream" (2020); "The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America" (2019); and more than 25 other books in print.
Full Bio >

Bari Weiss’ much-hyped Erika Kirk town hall was a massive ratings flop

Story by Justin Baragona

THE INDEPENDENT

Dec. 19, 2025

At the end of her heavily promoted Saturday night town hall with Erika Kirk, CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss promised viewers that there would be “many more conversations like this in the weeks and months ahead” on the network.

“So stay tuned. More town halls, more debates, more talking about the things that matter,” the anti-woke former New York Times op-ed writer declared.

However, based on the soft ratings from the Kirk event, one wonders just how much appetite the network’s leadership will continue to have for Weiss-led television specials.

According to early numbers from Nielsen’s Big Data + Panel measurement, the one-hour CBS News town hall – which aired on Saturday at 8 p.m. ET – drew 1.548 million total viewers and 237,000 in the coveted advertising demographic of viewers aged 25 to 54. Those numbers rose to 1.867 million viewers overall 265,000 in the advertising demo when Nielsen released its final numbers Tuesday afternoon.

Based on Nielsen’s final ratings, the Erika Kirk sitdown declined 11 percent in total viewership compared to the network’s standard programming in that time slot year to date – and was down 41 percent in the key demo.

A network source, however, noted that season-to-date the town hall was actually up compared to the network’s programming in recent weeks, showing an increase of 16 percent in total viewers and 10 percent in the key demo based on Nielsen’s preliminary numbers. The source also pointed out that the Weiss-Kirk event was up in both metrics compared to last week’s programming. The current television season, meanwhile, started in late September.
In a press release on Tuesday afternoon, CBS said that the town hall broadcast outpaced the the network’s season-to-date performance in the time slot by 32 percent in total viewership and 19 percent in the key demo.

Additionally, the source stated that the numbers that show the Kirk town hall down massively year-to-date compared to other CBS programming in the same time slot likely included NCAA tournament basketball games from March and April, adding that it isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison to news programming.

While Saturday night at 8 p.m. ET is one of the lowest-watched primetime hours on broadcast television, CBS has still generally averaged at least 2 million viewers during that hour over the past 12 months. According to Nielsen, the network has attracted 2.109 million viewers and 449,000 in the 25-54 demographic in that time slot throughout 2025.

Making the low viewership for the Erika Kirk town hall even more striking is that CBS pulled in a large audience for the annual Army-Navy game that afternoon, drawing 7.3 million viewers per Nielsen’s early measurement. The post-game show, which served as a lead-in for the Kirk-Weiss chat, attracted a viewership of 3.5 million and 901,000 in the advertising demo, according to Nielsen.

Online, the interview didn’t attract all that much interest either, despite the social media hype the network put behind it, along with preview airings on CBS Mornings and multiple digital writeups of the town hall – including a listicle titled “7 highlights from Erika Kirk's CBS News town hall.”

As of publication, the video of the event has tallied just 105,000 views on CBS News’ YouTube channel – which boasts nearly 7 million subscribers. The network source, however, noted that posts related to the town hall pulled in a total of 185 million views across CBS News social platforms.


Notably, the town hall with Kirk – the widow of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk – aired after Kirk had made multiple appearances on Fox News to promote her deceased husband’s newest book.

On top of that, Kirk – who now leads Turning Point USA, the right-wing youth organization her late spouse co-founded – used those Fox News spots to first take aim at far-right provocateur Candace Owens for peddling conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk’s death.

Owens, a one-time close friend of Charlie Kirk’s and a former TPUSA communications director, has speculated that he was killed due to his supposed shifting views on Israel and that TPUSA staffers may have been involved in his assassination. After Erika Kirk publicly urged her to stop, prompting Owens to criticize her in return, the two met “privately” to hash out their differences on Monday.


For the most part, Kirk’s appearances on Fox News – which caters to a conservative audience – outdrew the CBS town hall. For instance, her guest hosting spot on the late afternoon panel show The Five pulled in 3.3 million viewers, while even her co-hosting appearance on midday roundtable program Outnumbered averaged a viewership of 1.6 million.

By the time the CBS town hall – which was taped three days prior – aired on Saturday night, Kirk had made six different appearances on the conservative cable giant, along with a headlining spot at the New York Times DealBook conference.


Weiss has come under fire from CBS News staffers about her decision to step in front of the camera and moderate televised specials while serving as the newsroom’s top editor. (YouTube)

Since Paramount chief David Ellison installed her to lead the newsroom in October, complete with a mandate to hold “both American political parties to equal scrutiny” while reshaping CBS News’ coverage, Weiss – who describes herself as a “radical centrist” – has been looking to shake things up at the network. Her efforts, however, have so far been met with criticism from much of the staff.

This also included her decision to step in as moderator for this town hall, which the network hyped as “Kirk fielding questions from young evangelicals, prominent religious leaders and figures across the political spectrum” and a chance to “focus on our country’s political divide – and how we can find our way out.”

CBS News employees who spoke with The Independent said Weiss serving as moderator, an unusual move for most newsroom executives, was “embarrassing” and “revealed that all she really wants is to be on TV herself.”

“It doesn’t get more toe-curling than this,” one staffer said. “David Ellison must be mortified by his $150 million investment in someone who’s so quickly revealed themselves to be the most shallow, least interesting person in TV news.”

Meanwhile, Variety reported that blue-chip advertisers appeared wary of airing their commercials during Weiss’ special, noting that CBS News hasn’t typically hosted “town halls or debates on trending issues or with newsmakers.” Throughout the broadcast, commercial airtime was filled by direct-response advertisers, such as the dietary supplement SuperBeets.

The following hour, though, when a rerun of the investigative crime series 48 Hours aired, larger companies like Procter & Gamble and Amazon provided ads.

In the end, reviews for Weiss’ turn as a broadcast network moderator were less than kind.

“The broadcast was entirely deferential and incurious. Charlie Kirk’s critics were painted in broad strokes as badly motivated,” MS NOW opinion editor Anthony Fisher noted, adding: “The event revealed next to nothing about Erika Kirk that we didn’t know before. It wasn’t journalism, it was public relations.”

Morning Joe goes scorched earth on 'ridiculous' Bari Weiss after viewing spiked CBS story

Tom Boggioni
December 23, 2025

RAW STORY

Bari Weiss (Photo via Michael Blake for Reuters)

CBS News head Bari Weiss’s decision to “spike” a “60 Minutes’ segment detailing the horrific treatment of migrants sent by President Donald Trump’s administration to a brutal maximum security prison in El Salvador looks even worse now that the video clip was leaked online.

On Tuesday morning, the hosts of “Morning Joe” revealed that they had watched it and were incredulous that it was considered incomplete and needing more work, as Weiss later complained in a memo to CBS staffers.

Co-host Joe Scarborough took the lead in raking Weiss over the coals, telling his colleagues, “Oh, come on! This is the most ridiculous thing.”

Pointing to Weiss’s highly-publicized departure from the New York Times, he added, “And I think a certain person that used to write at the New York Times complained that whenever liberal editors wanted to scrap a conservative op-ed, they would scrub every single line. And that's exactly what happened here. Except now, of course, the shoe, once again, is on the other foot.”

Co-host Willie Geist chimed in, “And of course, '60 Minutes' again and again and again approached this administration for comment. They would have loved to have all these people sit in the chair, be on camera and answer these questions. But as they say in the report, the administration declined.”

“I know you guys talked about this yesterday, but it can't be said enough that particularly '60 Minutes', but all news organizations running a piece like this, whether it's television or print, they're not ‘Whoops!’ he added. “It's just a gauntlet of weeks of lawyers and standards and reporters and editors and producers and then the executives.”

“And also the idea that part of Bari Weiss’s explanation was, ‘Well, people know about this. We need to advance the story,’ Now, first of all, journalistically that's somewhat true,” co-host Jonathan Lemire remarked. “But at the same time, these are very different audiences. Like there's a '60 Minutes' audience which is different than the New York Times audience.”

We Can Survive Without ‘60 Minutes,’ But Democracy Won’t Survive Without Independent Media We Can Trust

At some point, as Trump continues to repress criticism of him and his regime, American democracy will be compromised beyond repair.

Screenshot of an unauthorized “60 Minutes” segment about a prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration sent hundreds of migrants. The piece was blocked from airing by CBS News’ editor-in-chief Bari Weiss over objections of the reporters who put the story together.
(Image: Screengrab/60 Minutes/CBS News)

Robert Reich
Dec 23, 2025

Inequality Media

Once you begin surrendering to Trump, he always wants more. You can’t appease a tyrant.

David Ellison’s CBS — after gutting DEI policies there, appointing right-wing hack Kenneth R. Weinstein to a new “ombudsman” role, and making anti-“woke” opinion journalist Bari Weiss editor-in-chief of CBS News (despite her lack of experience in either broadcasting or newsrooms) — yesterday removed a segment from “60 Minutes” featuring stories of Venezuelan men deported by the Trump administration to what the program called a “brutal” prison in El Salvador. Bari Weiss had demanded changes to the segment.

The Ellisons — fils et père — have been seeking Trump’s support for their hostile bid to acquire Warner Bros Discovery, but Trump has been unhappy with recent episodes of “60 Minutes,” even under its new management. Hence, the segment’s removal.

Sharyn Alfonsi, a long-standing “60 Minutes” correspondent who reported the segment that was removed, accused CBS News of pulling it for “political” reasons. “Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices,” she wrote in a note to the CBS News Team. “It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”

Here’s Alfonsi’s note in full:

News Team,

Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier.

I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity.
Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.

We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.

If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a “kill switch” for any reporting they find inconvenient.

If the standard for airing a story becomes “the government must agree to be interviewed,” then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state.

These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless.

CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that “low point.” By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones.

We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of “Gold Standard” reputation for a single week of political quiet.

I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight.

Sharyn


Sharyn Alfonsi wins this week’s Joseph N. Welch Award for courage in the face of tyranny (named for the chief counsel for the U.S. Army who confronted Senator Joe McCarthy with the iconic question, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” which led to McCarthy’s demise).

I’m old enough to remember when CBS News would never have surrendered to a demagogic president. But that was when CBS News — the home of Edward R. Murrow (who also revealed to America the danger of Joe McCarthy) and Walter Cronkite — was independent of the rest of CBS. And when the top management of CBS felt they had independent responsibilities to the American public.

America can survive without a “60 Minutes” it can trust, just as we can survive without trustworthy editorial pages of the Washington Post. But at some point, as Trump continues to repress criticism of him and his regime, American democracy is compromised beyond repair.

We are coming to the end of only the first year of Trump II. He and the lapdogs and sycophants around him have done more damage to this nation in less than a year than I thought possible.

They have not been them alone in their destruction. They’ve had enablers in the form of billionaires such as Larry and David Ellison, along with quisling managers such as Bari Weiss, who confuse having money and power with possessing integrity and fostering the common good.


© 2025 Robert Reich


Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
Full Bio >

CBS Killing a ‘60 Minutes’ CECOT Segment Shows Why We Must Back Independent Media

If we want to get responsible media that does its job in reporting on the deeds and misdeeds of the rich and powerful, we need to look to fundamentally restructure the media

Bari Weiss speaks onstage during Book Club Event With Peggy Noonan on November 19, 2024 in New York City.
(Photo by Noam Galai/Getty Images for The Free Press)

Dean Baker
Dec 23, 2025

Beat the Press


If anyone doubted that the rich would use their control of the media to push their agenda and silence dissent, CBS removed it with its decision to censor the scheduled “60 Minutes” broadcast on CECOT prison. CECOT is the notorious maximum-security prison in El Salvador where President Donald Trump has sent a number of the people that he has deported. There have been numerous accounts of torture and abusive treatment in the prison, which presumably would have been highlighted in the segment.

CBS, under its new ownership, decided that we shouldn’t see the “60 Minutes” segment, or at least not the one its team had prepared for broadcast last night. Apparently, they were worried it would offend the Trump administration.




According to a leaked account, Bari Weiss, the right-wing zealot that the new ownership put in charge of CBS News, decided that the program could not air without an interview with Stephan Miller, Trump’s deporter-in-chief. The producers of the show had apparently already reached out to the White House, as is their standard practice, but they refused to comment, presumably choosing to instead attack the broadcast as unfair and unbalanced after it ran.

Weiss is insisting that the program include an interview with Miller, giving him an effective veto over when and if the program airs. If we ever do see the segment, it will likely include other edits to make it more Trump friendly.

We do need to come up with ways to support independent media and not just complain about right-wing Trump sycophants taking over the media we have.

There can be a tendency to exaggerate the courage and independence of the pre-Trump media, but news shows like “60 Minutes” have done much great reporting over the years, breaking stories that the rich and powerful would prefer to see buried. This will no longer be the case.

Whining Is not an Effective Media Strategy, Nor Is Taxing the Rich

I have been getting regular fundraising notices from Robert Reich, whom I greatly respect, complaining about the takeover of the media by rich Trumpers. Reich is right, but the moral of his story is that we have to increase taxes on the rich.

While taxing the rich more is something we should do, along with taking away the patent and copyright monopolies that make many of them rich, and corrupt bankruptcy laws that give us private equity billionaires, along with a few other changes, we have to go much further to get back impartial media.

The huge gaps in wealth and income create an enormous power imbalance, and plausible changes in tax policy will do little to rectify the situation. If Elon Musk’s fortune was cut in half to $200 billion, he would still have a ridiculous amount of political power. The same applies to the rest of the crew of billionaires.

If we want to get responsible media that does its job in reporting on the deeds and misdeeds of the rich and powerful, plausible reductions in inequality (and how do we get those?) will not be sufficient. We need to look to fundamentally restructure the media.

When the right owns all the major news outlets and social media platforms, the idea that the truth will magically overcome their lies is not the sort of argument that can be taken seriously.

This is not as far-fetched a goal as it may sound. We will not get the current Congress, or even one with a Democratic majority in 2026, to take the lead in pushing for responsible media. But we can have initiatives at the state and local level to build up independent media that is not owned and controlled by the rich and very rich.

My preferred route is a system of individual tax credits, say $100 per person, to support the person’s favorite news outlet(s). This would be a credit, not a deduction, and fully refundable, so even the poorest person gets the same amount as Elon Musk. There could be different conditions attached to receiving the credit. In my view, the material supported should be freely available outside a paywall; but that’s something that could be decided by the state or local governments implementing the system.

The best model for those envisioning this system would be the charitable contribution tax deduction. The difference is that this would be a credit, with every person getting the same amount regardless of how much their income is.

We may already have a foot in the door on this. Katie Wilson, the newly elected progressive mayor of Seattle, is a big supporter of this system. She will have a full agenda as mayor, and faces a budget shortfall, but if stars align right, perhaps this system will be put in place.

Other states, like California and New York, have sought to support local media with a tax on Google and Meta, which have gobbled up much of the advertising revenue that had formerly supported news outlets. This money would then be used to subsidize subscriptions, an inferior approach in my view, but still a way to support independent media.

This system of individual tax credits may seem far away from the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars that support major news outlets like CBS or CNN. While it may be difficult to pay the multimillion-dollar salaries that top news anchors get through this system, it could support a huge amount of important journalism.

Many people will choose not to use their credits or use them to support slop or perhaps more right-wing MAGA screeds. But suppose 10% of the population, 25 million people, used their credits to support serious investigative reporting like what is done by outlets like ProPublica, the American Prospect, the New Republic, and on good days the New York Times.

That would provide $2.5 billion a year in revenue, roughly 100 times the budget of ProPublica. It could help to support hundreds of smaller outlets.

And even if most of this money goes to support local news outlets, they can band together to support national and international reporting. This has been the story of the Associated Press for 180 years.

The idea that a progressive stronghold, like Seattle, may adopt a modest proposal to support local news, may seem like chump change in a world where the mega rich tech oligarchs are throwing around billions to buy news outlets like cheap candy, but it is a hell of a lot more promising than whining. And it is not the only thing we can and should do to counter the corruption of the media by the Trump brigade.

It would be great to reform Section 230 so we don’t give Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg special protections that news and print outlets don’t enjoy. Obviously, this will not happen with a Republican Congress and Donald Trump in the White House, but we should at least highlight this utterly absurd subsidy that we give to these right-wing mega billionaires.

It would also be good if progressives stopped viewing it as gauche to file defamation lawsuits. That doesn’t mean absurd multibillion Trumpian lawsuits directed against every news outlet that criticizes someone, but it does mean suing to counter the damage of outright lies, such as the ones now being promoted against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

I know the standard line is that we counter lies with more speech; but save that for the kindergarten class. When the right owns all the major news outlets and social media platforms, the idea that the truth will magically overcome their lies is not the sort of argument that can be taken seriously.

Anyhow, that is a longer story. But we do need to come up with ways to support independent media and not just complain about right-wing Trump sycophants taking over the media we have. My scheme is on the table. Let’s hear others.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License


Dean Baker
Dean Baker is the co-founder and the senior economist of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of several books, including "Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better bargain for Working People," "The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive," "The United States Since 1980," "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (with Mark Weisbrot), and "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.
Full Bio >

YouTube, TikTok Deleted ‘60 Minutes’ CECOT Clips Amid Paramount Takedown Push

The segment on the notorious torture prison—where the Trump administration has been unlawfully deporting Venezuelans—went viral on social media after being inadvertently aired in Canada.



Bari Weiss speaks during a January 18, 2025 event in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for Uber, X, and the Free Press)

Brett Wilkins
Dec 23, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Websites including YouTube and TikTok this week removed posts of a CBS News “60 Minutes” segment on a notorious prison in El Salvador, where Trump the administration has been illegally deporting Venezuelan immigrants, after being notified that publishing the clip violated parent company’s copyright.

The segment on the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT)—which was intended to air on Sunday’s episode of “60 Minutes”—was pulled by right-wing CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, who claimed that the story “was not ready” for broadcast, despite thorough editing and clearance by key company officials.

“Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices,” said “60 Minutes” correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who reported the segment. “It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”

The segment—which can still be viewed on sites including X—was shared by social media users after a Canadian network received and broadcast an original version of the “60 Minutes” episode containing the CECOT piece prior to CBS pulling the story. The social media posts containing the segment were reportedly removed after CBS parent company Paramount Skydance filed copyright claims.

A CBS News representative said that “Paramount’s content protection team is in the process of routine take down orders for the unaired and unauthorized segment.”


Our people-powered journalism cannot survive without you

Your support allows Common Dreams to continue covering the stories and amplifying the voices that the corporate media never will. Make a tax-deductible year-end gift to ensure we can sustain the reporting needed to meet the challenges of 2026.




Weiss—who also founded and still edits the Paramount Skydance-owned Free Press—has faced criticism for other moves, including presiding over the removal of parts of a previous “60 Minutes” interview with President Donald Trump regarding potential corruption stemming from his family’s massive cryptocurrency profits.

On Tuesday, Axios reported that Weiss is planning a broad overhaul of standards and procedures at the network, where she was hired by Paramount Skydance CEO and Trump supporter David Ellison in October, despite a lack of broadcasting experience.

Pulled '60 Minutes' segment surfaces on web with Canadian broadcaster's branding

Story by Aaron Sousa and Ashley Joannou
December 23, 2025

,
Corus Entertainment Inc. has negotiated an amendment to a credit agreement with its lenders to give it some increased breathing room as it works to deal with its debt. The Corus logo at Corus Quay in Toronto is shown on Friday, June 22, 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Tijana Martin© The Canadian Press

A segment of the American news program "60 Minutes," pulled by CBS News prior to its U.S. airing, began circulating online Monday with the branding of Canadian broadcaster Global TV.

Multiple media reports say the program was uploaded to StackTV, Global's streaming platform, though it was not available to watch as of late Monday.

Global TV and its parent company, Corus Entertainment, did not immediately respond to calls and emails requesting comment.

CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss has said it was her decision to pull from Sunday's broadcast the segment featuring deportees who faced egregious torture at a notorious prison in El Salvador.

The journalist behind the story, Sharyn Alfonsi, has said the segment was cleared by CBS lawyers and is accusing Weiss of trying to appease the Trump administration -- a known critic of the show.

Weiss says Alfonsi's piece presented powerful testimony, but didn't “advance the ball," noting that other outlets had already done similar work.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 23, 2025.

— With files from The Associated Press

Aaron Sousa and Ashley Joannou, The Canadian Press

'Astonishing': Internet erupts after canned '60 Minutes' segment leaked

Robert Davis
December 22, 2025 

RAW STORY


Bari Weiss (Photo via Michael Blake for Reuters)

The internet erupted into a frenzy on Monday night after a video of a canned "60 Minutes" segment from Sunday was published.

On Sunday, CBS News Editor in Chief Bari Weiss scrapped a segment on "60 Minutes" about President Donald Trump's efforts to send deportees to the infamous CECOT prison in El Salvador. The video features testimony from deportees who said officers told them they "would never see the light of day again." It aired in Canada even though the segment was not shown in the U.S.

Weiss told CBS News staffers that the story did not meet the organization's editorial standards because it lacked an on-camera interview with someone from the Trump administration

Media experts and analysts reacted to the video after it was leaked.

"This could wind up being the most-watched newsmagazine segment in television history!!" ex-conservative lawyer and Democratic candidate for Congress George Conway posted on X. "Congratulations to the Ellisons and Bari Weiss!!!"

"Yes, this is real. Yes, it's astonishing," CNN media expert Brian Stelter posted on X. "Global TV, which airs 60 Minutes in Canada, uploaded the original version of Sunday's episode, including the Sharyn Alfonsi segment that Bari Weiss shelved. And now people all across the internet are watching the segment."

"It’s not just the New York Times. It’s not just Tucker Carlson. It’s not just MSNBC. It’s not just Megyn Kelly. It’s not just Peter Twinklage. CANADA effectively told Bari Weiss to pound sand tonight!" Peter Rothpletz, contributor to Zeteo News, posted on X.

"The most dangerous thing about this segment is that it shows America that these immigrants being sent to the foreign gulags are human beings, and the real monsters are the people denying them due process, abducting them and sending them there," Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director for the Campaign for NY Health, posted on X.

CBS Journalist Says Bari Weiss Spiked Segment on Notorious El Salvador Prison for ‘Political’ Reasons

“When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship,” wrote veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi.


A man is escorted by a CECOT guard on February 6, 2024 in San Vicente, El Salvador.
(Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Dec 22, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

A CBS News correspondent on Sunday accused Bari Weiss, the outlet’s editor-in-chief, of pulling a “60 Minutes” segment on El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison for “political” reasons, shortly before it was scheduled to air.

Late Sunday afternoon, “60 Minutes” said in an editor’s note that the broadcast lineup for the night had been “updated,” removing the planned “Inside CECOT” segment. The note said the report on the maximum-security prison—to which the Trump administration sent more than 200 Venezuelan migrants—would “air in a future broadcast,” without providing any specifics.

In an internal email obtained by the New York Times, veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who reported the segment, said she learned on Saturday that “Bari Weiss spiked our story” and did not grant the journalist’s request for a phone call to discuss the decision.

“Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices,” Alfonsi wrote. “It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”

CBS News is owned by Paramount Skydance, a company headed by David Ellison—the son of Trump ally and GOP megadonor Larry Ellison.

Alfonsi went on to note that “60 Minutes” had “been promoting this story on social media for days,” and “when it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship.”

“I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight,” she added.

Below is a trailer of the shelved segment, which included interviews with people sent to CECOT. Alfonsi said participants “risked their lives to speak with us.”



In a statement issued late Sunday, Weiss—whose brief tenure at the helm of CBS News has been embroiled in controversy—suggested she pulled the plug on the “Inside CECOT” segment because it lacked “sufficient context” and was “missing critical voices.” Unnamed people familiar with internal discussions at CBS News told the Times that Weiss pushed for the inclusion of a “fresh interview” with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, an architect of President Donald Trump’s lawless mass deportation campaign.

But Alfonsi wrote in her email that “we requested responses to questions and/or interviews with [the Department of Homeland Security], the White House, and the State Department,” but the requests went unanswered.

“Government silence is a statement, not a VETO,” Alfonsi wrote. “If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient.”

The decision to spike the CECOT segment has further inflamed internal tensions at CBS News over Weiss’ leadership. CNN reported that “some employees are threatening to quit” over the move.

“It is unclear when Weiss first viewed the [CECOT] story,” CNN noted. “But she has recently become personally involved in ‘60 Minutes’ stories about politics, the CBS sources told CNN.

TOO LATE

Watch 60 Minutes ‘Inside CECOT’ Segment Blocked by CBS News Chief Bari Weiss

“Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance.”


Screenshot of an unauthorized “60 Minutes” segment about a prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration sent hundreds of migrants. The piece was blocked from airing by CBS News’ editor-in-chief Bari Weiss over objections of the reporters who put the story together.
(Image: Screengrab/60 Minutes/CBS News)

Common Dreams Staff
Dec 22, 2025

A social media user on Monday shared at least part of a “60 Minutes” segment about a prison in El Salvador—where the Trump administration sent hundreds of migrants—after CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss controversially blocked its release.

“Canadians, behold! (And Americans on a VPN.) The canceled ‘60 Minutes’ story has appeared on the Global TV app—almost certainly by accident,” Jason Paris wrote on Bluesky, sharing a link to download a nearly 14-minute video of the segment, which has since been uploaded to various places on the internet.

The segment is titled “Inside CECOT,” the Spanish abbreviation for El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center.

Watch:

“Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance,” Paris added. Corus Entertainment owns Global TV. Paramount and Skydance merged earlier this year, after winning approval from the Trump administration. Weiss, a right-wing pundit, was then appointed to her position.

In a leaked email, “60 Minutes” correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi wrote that “Bari Weiss spiked our story,” and “in my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”

Why There Will Be Almost No Movie Theaters in 5 Years

The race for Warner Bros. by both Netflix and Paramount is just the latest evidence that capitalism will commodify art into oblivion—and a film-loving public will pay the price.



A finger taps an app folder field on a smartphone with the logos of the streaming platform Netflix (l) and the film studio Warner Brothers. Streaming giant Netflix is taking over Hollywood veteran Warner Brothers.
(Photo by Fernando Gutierrez-Juarez/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Miles Mogulescu
Dec 23, 2025

Common Dreams

Whether Netflix or Paramount wins the battle of mega-corporations to merge with the fabled Warner Bros. movie studio, the economics of the film industry no longer support the production of enough feature films for most movie theaters to still be viable businesses. Within a few years, the theatrical feature film will be all but dead with devastating cultural, social, political, and economic impact.

I’m a former senior vice president at MGM/UA (now owned by Amazon) and have been in the room of a major studio at greenlight meetings which decided which films were economically profitable enough (and creatively commercial enough) to go into production.
RECOMMENDED...


Critics Warn of ‘Catastrophic’ Threat If Netflix Acquires Warner Bros.


At these greenlight meetings, senior studio management would analyze spreadsheets projecting the likely production and marketing costs of a proposed film compared to the likely stream of revenues from various sequential windows—theatrical/home video/pay TV/first run free TV/syndicated TV/likelihood of sequels, both in the US and around the world.

Largely because of Netflix, those windows have cratered. There used to be an average three- to four-month window between theatrical release and release for viewing at home, and then multi-month windows between streaming, home video, pay tv, and free tv. Now, if Netflix even allows a theatrical release, they only give it as little as 3 weeks before they start to stream a theatrical film like the recent George Cloony/Adaem Sandler/Noah Baumbach film “Jay Kelly,” which started streaming just 17 days after it opened in theaters and sold almost no tickets.

A large portion of the public rightly figures that there’s no point in rushing out to theater to see a new feature for $15 or more a ticket plus parking and popcorn when they can see it at home at in a few weeks. Most theatrical films no longer pencil out.

While there were recently six major studios (plus mini majors), after Warner Bros. is sold (following other recent anti-competitive mergers like Disney buying Fox) there will only be four left.

With the collapsed distribution windows, it’s no longer feasible for those four studios to produce enough theatrical features to keep movie theaters in business. In 2025 over 100 films received a major theatrical release with inflation-adjusted box office revenues of over $15 billion while in 2024 they crashed to only 62 films with box office revenues of about $8.6 billions. Over 5,000 movie theaters have already closed their doors in the last couple of years.

And the types of theatrical films being greenlit have been mostly reduced to either $100-$200 million blockbuster action films (many of them sequels which earn less than their predecessors) and under $20 million horror films, as well as some children’s films. Dramas and comedies have almost disappeared from the majors’ theatrical release schedules except during the fall awards season when a small number of adult films are released in the hopes of being nominated for an Oscar.

“The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theatres from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents in small towns in the United States and around the world,” said Cinema United president Michael O’Leary in a statement. “Netflix’s stated business model does not support theatrical exhibition.”

When he’s not giving bullshit public relations statements, Netflix head honcho Ted Sarandos agrees, stating last year that movie theaters are “outdated.”

Art is now called “content” and is treated as an asset class to be bought and sold by mega-corporations like they’re real estate towers or meme coins. Roughly 2-hour dramas in 3 acts have been inspiring communal audiences for about 2500 years since the Greeks but they’re about to largely disappear from theaters, to the detriment of the entire culture. This is ushering in an age with little originality or surprise and general cultural stagnation. The sale of Warners will only accelerate this trend.

As James Cameron, director of “Titanic” and “Avatar” recently said, it will be a “disaster.”

Mainstream Oscar-winning directors of the recent past like Sidney Pollack (“Tootsie,” “The Way We Were,” Out of Africa“), Sidney Lumet (”Network,“ ”Serpico,“ ”Dog Day Afternoon“), Barry Levinson (”Rain Man,“ ”Wag the Dog,“ ”Good Morning Vietnam“) or Alan Pakula (”All The President’s Men,“ ”Sophie’s Choice“) probably couldn’t get arrested if they were coming up now. While studio execs may feel cool hanging around with Marty Scorsese, it’s unlikely that ”Taxi Driver“ would be greenlit today.

(The recent tragic murder of Rob and Michelle Reiner brings to mind other examples. Reiner’s classics like “When Harry Met Sally” or “A Few Good Men” probably wouldn’t get greenlit today, although as a horror film, “Misery,” based on a Stephen King novel, might sneak through today if it were dumbed down enough.)

The sale of Warner Bros. to either Netflix or Paramount violates Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act which provides that a merger is unlawful if its effect may be to substantially lessen competition. Factors include market concentration, foreclosure of rivals, lower wages for employees, the loss of potential competition, incentives to reduce quality or output , and the likelihood of higher prices to consumers for streaming services. We can’t count on the Trump administration to bring a solid antitrust claim. But state Attorney Generals have the legal right to sue to block anti-competitive mergers. California Attorney General Rob Bonta should coordinate with other state Attorney Generals to bring such a suit. The Hollywood community should be pressuring Bonta to do so.

Fifteen years ago, Warner Bros. CEO Jeff Bewkes infamously dismissed Netflix as the pipsqueak “Albanian Army.” Well, now the Albanian Army has demolished the metaphoric equivalents of the US, Britain, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world.

We need a new Normandy invasion to take it back.


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


Miles Mogulescu
Miles Mogulescu is an entertainment attorney/business affairs executive, producer, political activist and writer.
Full Bio >

Billionaire Ellison offers personal guarantee for son’s bid for Warner Bros


By AFP
December 22, 2025


Warner Bros. is among top Hollywood studios that are suing MiniMax, a Chinese AI company, for alleged copyright infringement. - Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP MARIO TAMA

Oracle tech tycoon Larry Ellison is offering a $40.4 billion personal guarantee to back Paramount’s hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, deepening a bidding war with Netflix, a statement said on Monday.

The amended proposal, worth a total $108 billion from the company run by Ellison’s son David, addresses concerns raised by Warner Bros’ board, which saw the Paramount bid as too risky and asked shareholders to accept a competing buyout offer from Netflix.

Netflix shocked the industry December 5 by announcing it had sealed an agreement to buy the film and television studio and HBO Max streaming business for nearly $83 billion, the entertainment industry’s biggest consolidation deal this decade.

Three days later, Paramount — whose CEO is David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, an ally of President Donald Trump — launched an all-cash tender offer valuing the entertainment giant at $108.4 billion.

But Warner Bros last week described the Paramount offer as risky, saying it was backed by “an unknown and opaque revocable trust” and involved “no Ellison family commitment of any kind.”

Warner Bros Discovery also stressed the dependence of the Paramount offer on foreign investors — $24 billion of the financing comes from Middle East sovereign wealth funds — which could require further government approval.

Paramount’s amended proposal is meant to address those concerns and also increases the breakup fee to match Netflix’s $5.8 billion, which would be payable to Warner Bros if its offer does not clear regulatory review.

“Paramount has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to acquiring WBD,” said David Ellison. “Our $30 per share, fully financed all-cash offer… continues to be the superior option to maximize value for WBD shareholders.”

Netflix shocked the industry December 5 by announcing it had sealed an agreement to buy the film and television studio and HBO Max streaming business for nearly $83 billion, the entertainment industry’s biggest consolidation deal this decade – Copyright AFP/File Marvin RECINOS

Unlike Netflix’s offer, Paramount’s bid includes the buyout of cable channels such as CNN, TNT, TBS and Discovery — which would be added to its group of TV assets like CBS, MTV and Comedy Central.

– Trump weighs in –

The bidding war that will reshape Hollywood and US media has drawn White House attention.

Trump has repeatedly weighed in, saying Netflix’s deal “could be a problem” as it would leave Netflix with a huge market share of the film and TV industry.

But he has also railed against coverage of the White House from Paramount-owned CBS News, saying neither bidder for Warner Bros had his preference.

He has stressed the importance that CNN gets new ownership as part of the Warner Bros sale, targeting the outlet he has long criticized for what he calls “fake news.”

Both Paramount and Netflix have lobbied the White House directly, with David Ellison also making conservative-friendly changes at CBS News.

Since taking over Paramount earlier this year, the company has appointed journalist Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief of CBS News.

Weiss is a prominent critic of what she calls bias in mainstream media, and the appointment won praise from conservatives.

On Monday, Weiss was accused by a CBS News staff member of pulling a planned segment on an El Salvador maximum-security prison where the Trump administration sent hundreds of Venezuelan migrants.

Congress Must Review an Autonomous Weapons Deal Between UAE and US Companies

There is a serious concern that these autonomous weapons could end up in the arms of the UAE-backed militia and regimes in the Middle East, which would fuel ongoing wars and cause great harm.


A general view of the Anduril Fury, an autonomous air vehicle (AAV) displayed on March 28, 2025 in Avalon, Australia.
(Photo by Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images)

Mohamed Suliman
Dec 23, 2025

Common Dreams


In December 2025, a joint venture was announced between EDGE, the leading Emirati advanced technology and defense conglomerate comprising 25 companies involved in military and civilian products and technologies, and Anduril Industries, an American defense company specializing in the development of advanced autonomous systems. The first product envisioned under this joint venture is Omen, a newly developed hover-to-cruise Autonomous Air Vehicle, or AAV. According to the terms of the agreement, the UAE will acquire the first 50 units of Omen.

There is, however, a serious concern that these autonomous weapons could end up in the arms of the UAE-backed militia and regimes in the Middle East, which would fuel ongoing wars and cause great harm.

For years, the United Arab Emirates has presented itself as a stabilizing force in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. Yet its actions on the ground tell a far more troubling story. From Libya to Ethiopia, the UAE has repeatedly backed armed groups and proxy forces, deepening conflicts rather than resolving them. In Somalia and Yemen, it has been bolstering the separatists’ voice. During the ongoing War in Sudan, the UAE has been backing the RSF militia with financial and military support to the RSF militia, including a recent supply of foreign combatants. The impact of UAE funding to the RSF militia has been catastrophic; it enabled the militia to commit numerous massacres and genocides in the Darfur region. According to United Nations experts, it is estimated that the militia killed 15,000 members of the Massalit tribe based on their ethnicity. In other parts of Darfur, women were raped and abducted, and children were piled up and shot to death. For months, El-Fashir city, the main refugee area in Darfur, has been besieged by the militia.

Here, we are not speculating but building our analysis on previous solid violations cases. EDGE has consistently supported the UAE’s allied militias in different parts of the Middle East. In November 2024, an investigative report by Amnesty International exposed that armored personnel carriers (APCs) were found in Sudan. These arms are manufactured by EDGE and are used by the RSF militia in stark violations of the UN arms embargo in Darfur. UN experts said that vehicles built by EDGE were also found in Libya and Somalia. These revelations show how EDGE could go far to collude with the UAE regime in its devastating wars and reckless interventions.

Ideally, an oversight mechanism should be established to ensure that these autonomous weapons and drones will not reach outlaw military militias and rogue regimes.

Recently, the UAE started to use Wagner and other Russian militia in its operations in Africa, for instance, in September 2024, it used Wagner to funnel arms to its RSF ally. The UAE also supported the Central Republic of Africa to pay the cost of hiring the Russian Atlas Corps to defend the government. And in November 2020, a report by the Pentagon mentioned that he UAE funded Wagner in Libya. Given these growing ties, it is legitimate to consider a scenario where these advanced autonomous systems could be leaked to Russian mercenary groups at any point in the future, which indeed represents a serious threat to US security and its interests in Africa.

Related to this are the recent reports that show that the UAE has increased its arms to the region in 2025. This escalation reflects its plans and goals, and that these autonomous weapons will be on its list for the next shipments, providing its militia and allied regimes with a competitive advantage over its foes, i.e stable governments and nations

When thinking about this deal, we have to take into consideration that the UAE isn’t a democratic country. It’s ruled by a single family, with no parliament to review decisions made concerning wars. Hence, it can’t be trusted by any measure to act responsibly if it owns this advanced technology.

Congress must take this issue seriously and review this deal. Ideally, an oversight mechanism should be established to ensure that these autonomous weapons and drones will not reach outlaw military militias and rogue regimes and be part of subverting countries and jeopardizing the US long-term interests.

‘Exactly What We Don’t Need’: Trump Bashed for Naming New Class of Warships After Himself

The reported move came just days after Trump added his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.


The USS Gravely warship enters the port of Port of Spain on October 26, 2025.
(Photo by Martin Bernetti/AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Dec 22, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The Wall Street Journal on Monday reported that President Donald Trump will announce that the US Navy is building a new class of warship that will be named after him.

According to the Journal, the president is expected to reveal that the Navy is building “a new ‘Trump-class’ battleship, which will become the centerpiece of the president’s vision for a new ‘Golden Fleet.’”


Genocide Backer and Narcissist Donald J. Trump Puts His Name on ‘US Institute of Peace’

The Journal noted that Trump in the past has complained about the aesthetic look of US warships, which he has described as “terrible-looking.” Sources told the Journal that the new ship will “be an upgrade to the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which are the workhorse of the current fleet and which Trump has compared unfavorably to rival navies.”

Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral who currently serves as a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, dumped on Trump’s “Golden Fleet” plans in an interview with the Journal, describing the ships as “exactly what we don’t need” and accusing Trump’s underlings of being “focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship.”

New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie echoed Montgomery’s criticisms of the project, which he speculated was being done for entirely frivolous reasons.

“This just has me thinking about how so much of this government and the movement around it is purely a matter of aesthetics,” he wrote on Bluesky. “Is there a strategic reason for produce a new warship? Maybe. But my hunch is that this is happening because the president thinks it will look cool.”

CNBC‘s Carl Quintanilla observed that the Trump-branded warships were just the latest thing that the president has slapped his name on, as in recent months he has also announced the creation of the “TrumpRx” prescription drug website and the “Trump Gold Card,” while also adding his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Democratic political strategist Jim Manley reacted with horror to Trump naming American military equipment after himself.

“My God,” he wrote on Bluesky. “Well, that seals the deal. If House and Senate appropriators agree to this—burn it all down.”

Trump to announce new fleet of battleships bearing his name

WILL THEY BE PAINTED GOLD?!

Story by Carl Gibson
ALTERNET

Dec. 22, 2025


U.S. President Donald Trump gestures during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 26, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst© provided by AlterNet

President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to cement his legacy by adding his name to U.S. government property has now spread to the Navy, according to a new report.

According to a Monday article in the Wall Street Journal, the president is now planning to announce a new fleet of "Trump-class" battleships for the Navy's "golden fleet." Trump's plan comes on the heels of the Navy's recent announcement that it will be building a series of frigates, with the first — dubbed the "U.S.S. Defiant" — scheduled to be on the open water by 2028.

"The self-aggrandizement spree continues," observed New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker on X.

The company HII Ingalls Shipbuilding is in charge of construction of the "golden fleet," with the first of the new ships being built in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Pascagoula shipyard is the current home of the U.S. Coast Guard's Legend-class Legend-class National Security Cutter (a ship roughly the same size as a frigate).

As the Journal reported, the U.S. Navy currently has 287 ships in its inventory, which include aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious ships and submarines. The new battleships would replace the current fleet of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which Trump has frequently (and unfavorably) compared to ships in other countries' naval fleets.

Former Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery — who is now the senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — told the Journal that the "golden fleet" was "exactly what we don't need" and estimated the cost of each ship to be roughly $5 billion. He noted that the new ships would have "zero tactical use" as they lack a vertical launch system and would not be equipped with the Aegis ballistic defense system.

Related video: Trump announces new US Navy 'Golden Fleet' battleships (Daily Mail)

"We do not need ships that are not optimized to provide lethality against the Chinese threat," Montgomery said. "... That is not what these are focused on — they are focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship."

Trump's pending announcement of the new fleet of battleships named for him comes after last week's news that the president's hand-picked board of the Kennedy Center voted to add his name to the facility (even though officially changing the name requires an act of Congress). Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.) recently introduced legislation aiming to stop Trump from adding his name to federal property, though its passage is unlikely given that Republicans control both chambers of Congress.

Click here to read the Journal's full report (subscription required).

'Trump Class' battleships plan already has major 'cultural shift' problem: analysis

Ewan Gleadow
December 23, 2025

RAW STORY

FILE: U.S. President Donald Trump attends the commencement ceremony at West Point Military Academy in West Point, New York, U.S., May 24, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

A proposed battleship line named after Donald Trump has already hit a snag according to a professor of war.

Professor Alessio Patalano of King's College London says the production of battleships named after Trump faces several problems, and that is before production has even started. The professor of war and strategy says the US may have the infrastructure necessary to building the new fleet, but it lacks the space and money necessary.

Speaking to CNN, professor Patalano said, "The question is … whether the US has a sufficient shipyard capacity and workforce to translate a visual gold fleet into a real sailing one."

"The US Navy is not known for being at the forefront of automation and innovative solutions in terms of more compact crew management." The professor of war and strategy has also suggested bringing these battleships up to speed with the rest of the US navy will require more than money.

It will also need a "cultural shift - in light of other new classes being built - of no trifling proportions," Patalano added. Fellow expert and former US Navy captain, Carl Schuster, agrees that a cultural shift is necessary for the project to be a success=

He said, "A national scale recruitment and training program for shipyard, electrical, information and sensor system workers (would be) required to support this program."

"This project will be managed by NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command), an organization and staff that has screwed up every surface warship program of this century. I believe Trump must clean house in that organization if he wants any shipbuilding program to succeed."

Schuster would go on to suggest there is a comparison to be made between Trump's military plans and that of JFK's space program.

The ex-Navy captain said, "I think Trump is trying to achieve a maritime equivalent to JFK’s call for a space program. Remember, the Soviets seemed to be ahead of us in space, a direct threat to our national security."


"The PLAN is nearing the ability to challenge our access to the Western Pacific, a direct and clear threat to our national security. Since it also poses a threat to Japan and South Korea, enlisting their help to meet that challenge is a necessary solution to the problem."

PIRATES OF PENZANCE