Sunday, March 15, 2026

In Era of Book Bans and War on History, Sinners Reveals What US Tries to Forget


Sinners deserves to win Oscars: It’s a blues poem, a freedom cry, and a love letter to powerful culture.
March 13, 2026

Nominee for Best Picture Sinners during the 98th Academy Awards nominations announcement at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills, California, on January 22, 2026.
VALERIE MACON / AFP via Getty Images


Warning: This article contains spoilers.


Near the end of Sinners, there is a moment that Hollywood rarely permits. The character Smoke guns down a gang of Ku Klux Klan members who have come to murder his people — and then, with hands still trembling, he cradles his newborn child in his arms.

Watching it, something strange and powerful stirred within me — as if the film were bending time, reaching across generations to reply to a story I recently learned in my journey to understand my family history.

A few years ago, my dad, Gerald Lenoir, made a stunning discovery: He found the Mississippi plantation where our family had been enslaved and the land where they lived after emancipation. In the process, he also discovered that the ancestors of the legendary bluesman J. B. Lenoir were likely enslaved on that same plantation.

That news bent me like a blue note on a National guitar.

I’ve spent much of my life devoted to the blues — I play harmonica in the band The Blue Tide — and this discovery was a revelation that bound me to the music’s tradition of protest and truth-telling in a way words can scarcely capture. After several trips there with my dad and brother, I brought my kids to Jayess, Mississippi, where we dedicated a headstone to my great-great-grandparents, Thomas and Laura Lenoir, who had been enslaved nearby.

At the ceremony, a woman in her nineties approached and told me she had once been friends with my great-great-grandmother Laura. The fact that I was talking to someone who had been friends with a person who had once been enslaved was stunning.

This history isn’t distant. It’s breathing right beside us.

Then she told us a story I will never forget. During Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan burned down the preschool that Black families in Jayess had built for their children in an effort to drive them off their land. But the community didn’t run. They armed themselves, rebuilt the school in a tent, and stayed. They fought back and held onto their land.

That’s why that scene in Sinners hit me so hard.

For families who have passed down stories of surviving the Klan — and the trauma and resilience of those encounters through their blood — that moment on screen was not just witnessed. It was remembered in the body.

Cultural critic bell hooks once wrote that enslaved Black people were often punished simply for looking at white slaveowners, and she wondered how that traumatic history shaped “Black parenting and Black spectatorship.” Out of that history, hooks argued, Black audiences developed what she called an “oppositional gaze” — a way of watching films critically, aware of how Hollywood has long distorted or erased Black life. Instead of forcing Black viewers to watch themselves through a white lens, Sinners centers Black memory, Black defiance, and Black love.

In doing so, the film also understands something the writer Amiri Baraka captured in his landmark study Blues People: “Blues means a Negro experience.” He understood that the blues is not merely music but the historical expression of Black life in America. Sinners takes that insight seriously.

The Blues Summons Monsters and Opens Portals

Set in 1932 Clarksdale, Mississippi, Sinners follows Smoke and Stack (both portrayed by Michael B. Jordan), twin brothers who return home from Chicago after years working in Al Capone’s criminal empire to open a juke joint.

They recruit a band of extraordinary musicians, including their cousin Sammie “Preacher Boy” Moore (played with electrifying grace by actor-musician Miles Caton in his film debut), a blues guitarist and preacher’s son; Delta Slim (poignantly portrayed by Delroy Lindo), a piano and harmonica player; and Pearline (Jayme Lawson), a blues singer who catches Sammie’s eye and lands a gig at Smoke and Stack’s juke joint.

Smoke and Stack purchase an old sawmill from a white man, who hides the fact that he is the local head of the Ku Klux Klan, and turn it into their juke joint. That evening it becomes a sanctuary for Black residents of Clarksdale — a place where music, laughter, and community create moments of magic and freedom.

Inside Smoke and Stack’s juke joint, Sammie’s music does something astonishing: It bends the space-time continuum, transforming the room into a portal. West African griots appear — playing, drumming, dancing — their sound threading across centuries. Then Sammie’s blues music opens up a portal to the future that ushers in an electric guitarist in the tradition of Jimi Hendrix or Parliament, followed by a hip-hop DJ scratching a record, a break dancer, and Black women twerking that echo the African women also on the dance floor. Even the dancing Chinese ancestors of Grace Chow (Li Jun Li) and her husband Bo (Yao) — immigrant shopkeepers in Clarksdale who help with supplies for the juke joint — are summoned into the space, showing that this musical connection has no borders.

The sequence becomes one of the great scenes in cinematic history and one of the greatest tributes to Black musical genius ever expressed. In a few electrifying minutes, the film does something that has rarely been accomplished: It makes visible the living genealogy of Black music — from African rhythms to the blues to rock to hip-hop — revealing it not as a series of separate genres but as a single river of creativity flowing through centuries of struggle and survival.

But sanctuaries can attract predators.

As the film’s opening narration proclaims, “There are legends of people born with the gift of making music so true it can pierce the veil between life and death, conjuring spirits from the past and the future … This gift can bring healing to their communities — but it also attracts evil.”

True solidarity — one capable of liberating everyone, Sinners suggests — cannot be built on colorblind fantasies. It must be forged through an uncompromising struggle against white supremacy.

Clarksdale is haunted — not only by the specter of the Ku Klux Klan, but by another terror that does not simply want to take Black life, but devour Black creativity. It is Sammie’s extraordinary gift for the blues that cracks open the veil between worlds and entices evil, drawing the cunning, complex, and sometimes sympathetic vampire Remmick (Jack O’Connell) and his followers to the juke joint — setting the stage for a night where music, history, and horror collide.

As the community resists the vampire attack, they turn to Annie (the magnetic Wunmi Mosaku), a hoodoo matriarch whose knowledge of rootwork and ancestral protection is needed in the struggle to save Black lives and Black culture.

Remmick, an Irish musician who also knows the sting of colonization and discrimination, goes to the juke joint seeking entry so he can harness the power of Sammie’s blues to reunite him with beloved ancestors he could not save centuries ago. There he makes a passionate case for the Black musicians to join his side:


We believe in equality and music. Can’t we just for one night all be family? … I am your way out. This world already left you for dead. Won’t let you build, won’t let you fellowship. And we will do just that. Together. Forever.

When the Black people in the juke joint refuse to trust Remmick and deny him entry, the scene could be read as a rejection of multiracial unity — an argument that Black culture must remain separate and that alliances across race are doomed to betrayal. But that is not the film’s message. The price of joining Remmick’s “family” and gaining immortality is that Black people relinquish the power of the blues, their memory, and their roots. It is “colorblind” racism in its most seductive form: a system that claims to see “no race” while devouring everything that makes a people distinct, powerful, and whole. Remmick’s offer is not genuine solidarity; it is a form of erasure. True solidarity — one capable of liberating everyone, Sinners suggests — cannot be built on colorblind fantasies. It must be forged through an uncompromising struggle against white supremacy.


North or South, the story was often the same: Black artists created the music that changed the world while others reaped the profits.

The use of vampires to make this point is brilliant. As China Miéville writes in Theses on Monsters, “Epochs throw up the monsters they need. History can be written of monsters, and in them.” Sinners takes that seriously. The vampires haunting Clarksdale are not generic ghouls — they are born of this place, this time, this terror. They feed not just on blood, but on Black creativity. They are the monsters that ripping off Black artists requires: elegant and seductive, yet parasitic.

Sinners refuses to forget the price Black musicians have paid for every riff, every howl, every aching note of the blues — leaving the audience wondering who is more terrifying: the vampires or the Klan. The brutality of white violence in Mississippi was perhaps best captured by blues legend J.B. Lenoir, who sang in his song “Born Dead”:


Why was I born in Mississippi
When it’s so hard to get ahead?
Every Black child born in Mississippi
You know the poor child was born dead.

In just a few lines, Lenoir captured the crushing reality of what it meant to be Black and poor in the Jim Crow South: to be born under siege, fighting for breath, with the odds stacked against you from your first cry. Lenoir knew that reality well. Like many Black southerners during the Great Migration, he left Mississippi and carried the blues north to Chicago, where the music helped transform American culture. But the promise of escape was often more illusion than liberation. Even though Lenoir had a hit song and toured Europe with many blues greats, like many Black blues artists of his era, he was never properly compensated for the songs that helped shape American music. By the late 1960s, living in Chicago, Lenoir had to work a second job as a dishwasher just to survive.

North or South, the story was often the same: Black artists created the music that changed the world while others reaped the profits — sometimes recording more lucrative versions of the very songs Black musicians wrote. As Imani Perry writes in Black in Blues, “The blues were marketed, copyrighted, and taken out of their home grounds, and heard without being listened to, as though there were neither anguish nor art, just entertainment.” As Smoke tells his younger cousin Sammie — who dreams of escaping the oppression and lack of opportunity in Mississippi — “Chicago ain’t shit but Mississippi with tall buildings instead of plantations.” Or as Malcolm X once said, “Stop talking about the South. As long as you are South of the Canadian border, you are South.”
Black Women Got Their Mojo Workin’

With the vampires at the door of the juke joint, it is Annie who shows the community how to fight back; and it is significant that in Sinners, as often in real life, it is a Black woman who carries the wisdom, strategy, and spirit needed for survival.

From Sojourner Truth to Harriet Tubman to Claudia Jones to Ella Baker to Angela Davis — and countless ordinary Black women whose names history rarely records — Black women have long stood at the front lines of the freedom struggle, providing the essential knowledge, organizing, and leadership. Annie is the embodiment of that tradition.


Sinners treats Black women’s wisdom and guidance with unmistakable reverence.

Annie’s spiritual practice of hoodoo — the African American folk spiritual tradition born from West and Central African religions, Indigenous knowledge, and the brutal necessity of survival under slavery — is shown to be sacred ancestral knowledge that protects her community. (The film’s portrayal of hoodoo was shaped by the guidance of professor Yvonne Chireau.)

Sinners treats Black women’s wisdom and guidance with unmistakable reverence. Director Ryan Coogler’s wife, Zinzi Coogler (née Evans), was a lead producer deeply involved in the development process — and it shows. The film is alive with the same electricity Black women blues singers once carried onto the stage in the early 20th century. During the 1920s — what scholars call the “classic blues” period — Black women dominated the blues stage and recording industry. As Angela Davis argues in Blues Legacies and Black Feminism, these singers were doing something radical: reclaiming their bodies and desires in public after centuries in which Black women’s bodies had been treated as property.

Under slavery, enslavers routinely raped Black women and forced them to bear children to increase the enslaved labor force. Emancipation did not end the violence. In the Jim Crow era that followed, Black women remained at the bottom rung of the social order, still vulnerable to exploitation, poverty, and sexual abuse.

Against that backdrop, blues women’s voices were revolutionary.

Artists like Ma Rainey, Bessie Smith, Mamie Smith, Victoria Spivey, and Lucille Bogan sang openly about desire, pleasure, independence, bisexuality, and lesbian love — with fearless honesty that defied white supremacist codes of respectability. As Davis explains:


Sovereignty in sexual matters marked an important divide between life during slavery and life after emancipation … Gertrude ‘Ma’ Rainey and Bessie Smith … preached about sexual love, and in so doing they articulated a collective experience of freedom, giving voice to powerful evidence that slavery no longer existed.

These women used the blues to assert sexual autonomy and emotional emancipation in a world that had long denied them both — and Sinners carries that legacy forward. The Black women in the film are not passive figures — they are agents of their own pleasure and power. Their sexuality is not hidden or sanitized; it is vibrant, joyful, rebellious. It refuses to be stolen, shamed, or silenced.


Sinners gathers what this country has tried to forget: the chain gangs, the terror of the Klan, the monstrous theft of Black creativity, the spiritual knowledge that kept a people alive, the laughter that survived, and the music that carried those memories forward.

When Annie’s husband Smoke returns after a long absence, she initiates intimacy, reaching out to reclaim love, body, and spirit on her own terms. And in one of the film’s juke joint scenes, Pearline’s voice pours into the night like a river — and after electrifying the crowd, she is later shown receiving sexual pleasure from Sammie. It is a moment of mutuality and affirmation: a celebration of Black women’s right to desire, to be desired, and to experience joy without shame.

As bell hooks observed, too often when Black women appeared in Hollywood films, “our bodies and being were there to serve — to enhance and maintain white womanhood as object of the phallocentric gaze.” In Sinners, Black women are not background figures serving a broader project of white hegemony and its intersection with sexism — they are carriers of knowledge, power, and desire, shaping the fate of their community.
Sin Verses Love

In an era of mass book bans and laws that prohibit almost half of public school students in the U.S. from learning about systemic racism and honest accounts of Black history, Sinners gathers what this country has tried to forget: the chain gangs, the terror of the Klan, the monstrous theft of Black creativity, the spiritual knowledge that kept a people alive, the laughter that survived, and the music that carried those memories forward.

In one unforgettable scene, Delta Slim rides with Sammie and Stack past a chain gang laboring by the side of the road. As the prisoners’ work song drifts through the air, he recounts the lynching of a dear friend. When the story ends, he offers no sermon or explanation. Instead, he lets out a low, aching moan and begins humming along with the rhythm of the chain gang’s song. In interviews, Lindo later revealed that the moan was spontaneous — a reminder that the blues has always sprung from improvisation, memory, and the raw expression of lived experience.

To Sammie’s father Jedidiah (played by the incomparable Saul Williams), the preacher who warns his son against the blues, the dancers, drinkers, lovers, and musicians of the juke joint are sinners. But the film ultimately rejects that judgment, insisting the real demons are white supremacy, racial violence, and the theft of Black creativity. Even though Preacher Boy leaves the confines of his dad’s church, the blues — rather than damning his soul — allows him to tell his story to the world.

As the legendary blues bassist and songwriter Willie Dixon once said, “The blues is truth.” Sinners lets that truth sing.


Sinners is a blues poem. It is a freedom cry. It is a love letter.

And the soundtrack is sizzling. In one of the film’s most beautiful surprises, legendary Chicago blues guitarist Buddy Guy appears at the end as an older Sammie — a moment that knocked me out the first time I saw it. In a closing-credits scene, Guy shares the stage with Christone “Kingfish” Ingram, the two of them representing the living history and future of the blues. The soundtrack itself features some of the greatest living blues and roots artists alive, including Rhiannon Giddens, Justin Robinson, Bobby Rush, Cedric Burnside, and Eric Gales, with Lawrence “Boo” Mitchell and Jake Blount serving as some of the film’s music consultants. The result is a soundtrack and musical world that feels like the blues itself — alive, rooted, and in conversation across generations.

Perhaps only a force as powerful as love could have created such a cinematic achievement. Ryan Coogler has said the seed for Sinners was planted by an uncle who loved the blues and spent hours sharing those records and stories with him. After his uncle passed away, Coogler made his first pilgrimage to Mississippi to learn more about the culture that produced the music his uncle cherished — a journey that echoes my own recent trips South to learn more about my family’s roots and the land where my ancestors lived and labored.

Sinners deserves to win Best Picture and every one of the record 16 Oscars for which it has been nominated. But it cannot be judged only as a film. It is a blues poem. It is a freedom cry. It is a love letter — to Coogler’s uncle, to the blues, and to ancestors like mine who endured that brutal world in Mississippi and still left behind a culture so powerful that no vampire could ever drain its lifeblood.


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


Jesse Hagopian

Jesse Hagopian is a Seattle educator, the director of the Zinn Education Project’s Teaching for Black Lives Campaign, an editor for Rethinking Schools, and the author of the book, Teach Truth: The Struggle for Antiracist Education. You can follow him at IAmAnEducator.com, Instagram, Bluesky or Substack.
Interview

War on Iran Is Enriching Weapons Firms as It Tanks the Global Economy

The military-industrial complex rakes in profits as the rest of the world suffers, economist C. P. Chandrasekhar argues.

March 14, 2026

A strike hit the Iranian capital Tehran, on March 3, 2026.Atta Kenare / AFP via Getty Images

Since the end of World War II, almost every U.S. president has initiated a major military conflict without congressional approval. Donald Trump attempted to portray himself as a “peace president,” promising to end the U.S.’s endless wars and bring troops home from the Middle East and other parts of the globe. But he has proven to be even more trigger-happy than most of his predecessors. In just the first year since his return to office, he has attacked several countries. On February 28 he joined Israel in launching an attack on Iran, killing the country’s supreme leader and targeting both military installations and civilian projects, including bombing a girl’s primary school in Minab, in Iran’s Hormozgan province, that killed more than 170 people, most of them children.

The war in Iran is illegal. In addition to murdering and maiming civilians and spreading fear and suffering, it is also causing collateral damage to the world economy and may very well trigger a global economic crisis if it continues much longer. In an exclusive interview for Truthout, C. P. Chandrasekhar, a world-renowned scholar of finance and development, explains how the war could affect the global economy. He is emeritus professor at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, where he taught for more than 30 years, and currently a senior research scholar at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

C. J. Polychroniou: Over the past couple of decades or so, the global economy has experienced various shocks and seems to be in the midst of seemingly endless uncertainties. Capitalism, after all, is inherently unstable, subject to periodic crises. And today, due to the U.S. and Israel, the war Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu initiated against Iran has sent tremors through the global economy. There are fears that the war will drive oil to $150 a barrel and that stagflation is knocking on the door. What’s your assessment of the way the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran will impact the world economy?

C. P. Chandrasekhar: I would not refer to the fallout of the joint, unilateral and unwarranted attack by the U.S. and Israel on Iran as a “shock.” The attack emanates from the most aggressive core of contemporary capitalism, and its effects should have been expected by those responsible for it, especially Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. If their assessment was that the fallout would be short-lived and limited, they were clearly wrong. The rise in the prices of oil and oil products is only the most immediate and visible consequence, given the crucial role of the region as a source of global supply. But even that rise is not driven just by the war-induced shifts in the supply of oil. It is aggravated and rendered hugely volatile by the role of large speculative trading multinationals subordinated by global finance, which may not control production but can influence supply prices. Capitalist and imperialist states today are at the mercy of these agents, who seize every opportunity to extract super profits. The decision of these states (especially the governments of the U.S., Germany, and Japan) as members of the International Energy Agency to release 400 million barrels of oil from their strategic reserves is at most a feeble response. Even if replicated, by depleting reserves, the move will only send a signal to speculators who assume that the war will last to bet that prices will only spike further. That would aggravate oil price inflation. Figures like $150 a barrel are at best guesstimates.

Thus, the real uncertainty is how long the war will last. Pushed to the wall, faced with the assassination of its supreme leader of decades, and confident (despite internal differences) that attack will not result in regime change and installation of a U.S.-chosen political leader, Iran shows no signs of retreating. The objectives of Netanyahu, both personal and political, are such that oil price increases and the implications they have for the global economy and the citizens of the rest of the world are not concerns. Occupation, genocide, and war are the means to pursue those abhorrent goals, at the expense of all else. But Netanyahu cannot pursue them by himself. He needs Trump to fund, support, and legitimize his actions. So, whether the war will last depends on Trump’s staying power.

The U.S. president is caught in a trap of his own making. If he withdraws, he admits that he made a mistake taking the U.S. to war despite his promise to voters that he will not repeat the blunders of his predecessors in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; if he stays, he risks being identified as the principal agent driving the world to a crisis the dimensions of which are unclear. This explains the desperate efforts to rein in oil prices by restoring tanker transit through the all-important Strait of Hormuz sealed by Iran, by offering insurance to encourage shipping companies to risk their assets and crew to transport oil through the choke point and pressuring a recalcitrant U.S. Navy to escort ships through the strait. Such abortive efforts only prolong the war.

The attack emanates from the most aggressive core of contemporary capitalism, and its effects should have been expected by those responsible for it.

The nature of the consequent imminent crisis is partly divulged by the all-around fear of the inflation that it has unleashed. We are in a stage of capitalism in which the powerful epistemic community of finance has prescribed that countries should privilege the use of monetary over fiscal policy levers to manage their economies; that the principal objective of monetary policy should be to target inflation and keep it in a range that is low by historical standards; and that “independent” central banks should have the right to impose that agenda. In this context, a corollary of higher-than-mandated inflation is a rise in interest rates. So, inflation triggered by increases in oil prices would set off interest rate hikes. That spells a return to the hoary 1970s when high inflation and elevated interest rates resulted in low growth interspersed by recessions of varying intensity.

The route through which high interest rates are expected to tame inflation, if at all, is by reining in debt-financed consumption, housing acquisitions, and investment, and thereby reducing demand. A recession is an inevitable consequence. Stagflation, or a combination of inflation and recession, have obvious adverse implications for employment and real income. But it is not just the working people and the middle classes populating the “real economy” that are hit by inflation.

Finance capital, which is the fulcrum of present-day imperialism, is also hit by inflation in at least two senses.

First, a feature of the Age of Finance unleashed by financial deregulation is that financial profits are made through speculation-driven increases in asset prices, enabled by loose monetary policies of central banks. This is done not just by banks, but by new financial innovators like private equity firms. Such bubbles in turn generate increases in consumption and investment financed by debt. Interest rate increases aimed at reining in inflation also rein in this self-fueling spiral that underlies the rise of finance capital. As a result, finance capital finds it difficult to exercise the freedom it derived from deregulation to amass profits.

Finance capital also hugely profited from the low interest rates that characterized the years since the mid-1980s, when capitalism experienced a very long period of low inflation termed the Great Moderation. Access to cheap borrowing and supposed “innovations” drive increases in the value of financial assets, which translate into “profits” that were not warranted by “fundamentals.” In the Age of Finance, it became common to argue that fundamentals are irrelevant. However, if the low interest rates that underpin this boom give way, the financial edifice built on its basis will unravel and collapse. Finance capital will take huge losses, but so will the real economy as happened during the Great Recession of 2008 and after. So, the war spells doom for capital as well.

That is the scenario facing the world today.

Putting aside the human cost, wars are a profit-making enterprise for certain industries but generally detrimental to overall economic activity, so it makes one wonder why capitalist states engage in wars. How are capitalism and war linked? Has militarized accumulation become an integral component of the way global capitalism functions?

Capitalists belonging to and associated with the military-industrial complex that came to dominate capitalism in the 20th century have always loved a good war, because it increases defense spending, boosts demand for their products, and inflates profits. But the military-industrial complex as a driver of wars under capitalism, while still active, has diminished in significance. Estimates have it that as compared to the 8-10 percent of GDP allocated to the Pentagon in the U.S. before and during the Vietnam War years, the agency’s 2025 budget was at around $850 billion, or just around 3 percent of GDP.

But wars are central to capitalism in a larger sense. Since its inception, capitalism has engaged in war and conquest to facilitate the plunder and market invasion that facilitated accumulation on a world scale. That brutal process of “primitive accumulation” was not confined to the early stages of capitalism and years of colonial expansion, but has continued through its history, since the system’s expansion and stability depends on the surpluses and markets acquired through military intervention.


Since its inception, capitalism has engaged in war and conquest to facilitate the plunder and market invasion that facilitated accumulation on a world scale.

In time, the objectives of such militarism widened to include: defeating competing imperialist powers within what was still a capitalist world with conflicted nation states; making efforts to contain socialism; undermining movements for national self-determination and freedom from imperialism; and unseating Global South governments seen as anti-capitalist, overly nationalist, or just “insubordinate.” More recently, the drive of the U.S. as a waning hegemon to recover its past supremacy has intensified. As a result, aggressive efforts to gain control of the world’s resources, especially of critical minerals and energy, have once again come to the fore, reviving older versions of imperialist aggression. This is illustrated by the recent push to unseat governments in Venezuela and Iran, in a blatant resort to regime change that would ensure resource control without occupation.

It is in this larger sense that militarized accumulation has been and is integral to the functioning of capitalism.

The U.S. gets none of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz and higher oil prices could bolster the dollar against major currencies. Does this mean that the Iran war will have no negative impacts on the U.S. economy?

Even though the U.S. is now primarily an oil-exporting and not an oil importing nation as it was in the 1970s, oil prices in the U.S. in a domestically privatized and globally integrated economy cannot be insulated from international prices, including those set by profit-gouging speculators and corporations. And while its access to oil and the role of dollar-denominated assets as safe havens in times of uncertainty strengthens its hand, the unraveling of the financial balloon that defines the Age of Finance would, as I argued earlier, wreak heavy damage on a U.S. economy (and particularly its working class) that is still recovering from the financial crisis and Great Recession of 2008 and after.

The Iran war will likely have significant implications for economies that are vulnerable to high energy prices. But the impacts will not be confined to energy. As in the case of the war in Ukraine, the Iran war may trigger global disruptions for key food crops and fertilizers. Moreover, the economic fallout of the war will disproportionately affect the debt-stricken countries in the Global South. Could this war spark a new international economic crisis?

In an intrinsically unequal international economic order, which has seen global inequality only increase in the Age of Finance, the less-developed and poor countries that are the target of imperialist aggression which keeps them poor are always the main losers. That happened when the oil shocks of the 1970s destabilized the global economy. It would happen this time as well.


The crisis would be global in geography, but uneven in impact across peoples

Rising oil prices would widen the trade and current account deficits of the oil-importing less-developed countries. Rising interest rates would increase foreign exchange outgo to service outstanding debt liabilities. A global recession would affect migrant workers and therefore the remittances they send home, which are an important source of foreign exchange. Transportation bottlenecks and rising shipping costs would adversely affect export revenues. The damage resulting from a larger current account deficit on account of these reasons would be worsened by capital flight as foreign investors exit from economies that are more risky investment locations and domestic wealth holders flee to safe havens in the West. Balance of payments crises would be the outcome. As a result, currencies would depreciate sharply and raise the domestic currency costs of servicing foreign liabilities with foreign exchange payments. Bankruptcies and real economy recessions would follow.

That litany of woes can be endless. So, the crisis that a wanton act of war led by rogue states is likely to precipitate will be truly international. But states in countries of the Global North would step in to save capital as they did in 2008. The crisis would be global in geography, but uneven in impact across peoples, not just in terms of lives lost as a result of military devastation but also livelihoods destroyed because of economic destabilization.
Trump’s Advice for Iran to Skip World Cup “for Their Safety” Leads to Questions

Iran had already decided not to take part in the World Cup in North America this summer, citing the US’s attacks.

By Chris Walker
Truthout
March 13, 2026

President Donald Trump looks on during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Official Draw at John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on December 5, 2025.Patrick Smith / Getty Images

In a Truth Social post on Thursday, President Donald Trump suggested that the Iranian national soccer team should not come to the U.S. for the FIFA World Cup this summer — remarks that some social media users interpreted as a threat.

“The Iran National Soccer Team is welcome to The World Cup, but I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety,” Trump wrote in his post.

Trump’s ambiguous post, which came just two weeks after the U.S. and Israel launched a joint war against Iran, could be interpreted in numerous ways — including as genuine concern or as a direct warning to players. In the latter’s case, Trump’s comments would mark a departure from international norms that tend to respect sport as a concept that transcends global affairs.

Users online were quick to question Trump’s warning.

“Is this a threat???” sociology professor and author Nathan Kalman-Lamb asked, citing Trump’s post.

“So I don’t think a sitting president has ever threatened the life of a soccer team coming to their country’s World Cup?” journalist Sydney Bauer wrote in a Bluesky post.

Bauer added that “this feels like something FIFA should be making a stink about.”

“Why didn’t he [Trump] just put a bounty on their heads?” journalist Mark Chadbourn said.

Trump’s comments were somewhat of a moot point — a day before his post was made, Iran Sports Minister Ahmad Donyamali had already determined that the team wouldn’t participate in the World Cup, which is taking place jointly in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

“Considering that this corrupt regime has assassinated our leader, under no circumstances can we participate in the World Cup,” Donyamali said in a statement, adding:


Given ​the malicious actions they have carried out against Iran, they have forced two wars on us over eight or nine months and have ​killed and martyred thousands of our people. Therefore, we certainly cannot have such a presence.

Iran was considered a contender in the games, as their soccer team had dominated their qualifying round last year. However, all three of Iran’s World Cup group matches were scheduled within the U.S.

At least 1,444 people have been killed in Iran since the U.S. and Israel launched their unprovoked attacks on the country. Around 1,100 children in the Middle East have been killed or injured in the war so far.

While some have called for FIFA to look into Trump’s comments, it’s unlikely he’ll face any repercussions, as he is close friends with FIFA president Gianni Infantino.

Late last year, Infantino, on behalf of the international soccer organization, presented Trump with the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize — an award that was created shortly afterTrump expressed frustration over not being named the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Infantino’s tenure as FIFA president has been marred by controversy regarding the organization’s decision to overlook human rights violations by member nations, such as Saudi Arabia’s abuse of foreign workers and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

Amid growing tensions between the U.S. and Europe — fueled by Trump’s militaristic actions over the past couple of months and his constant demands for the annexation of Greenland (including through force) — several European commentators have suggested a boycott of the World Cup.

Comparing the concept to the decision by many countries to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in the Soviet Union in 1980, a German soccer federation vice president, Oke Göttlich, has led the push for its consideration.

“By my reckoning, the potential threat is greater now than it was then,” Göttlich said in January — weeks before the Iran war started. “We need to have this discussion.”

Other figures in Europe have discussed taking action against the U.S., including dozens of members of the United Kingdom’s Parliament who have called for FIFA to exclude the U.S. from the World Cup. Swiss attorney Mark Pieth, who chaired the Independent Governance Committee that oversaw FIFA reform over a decade ago, has urged fans planning to travel to the U.S. to reconsider.

“For the fans, there’s only one piece of advice: stay away from the USA!” Pieth said.
RFK Jr hits 'new low' with Trump's inner circle as they attempt to muzzle him: WSJ

Tom Boggioni
March 14, 2026 
RAW STORY


 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before a Senate Finance Committee hearing. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s penchant for going rogue of health policy has forced Trump insiders to install new oversight controls, as mounting scandals and unpopular vaccine positions threaten to become a political liability for Republicans heading into midterms.

Despite Trump's public praise for the controversial HHS Secretary, White House officials—some who never supported Kennedy's prominent role—are increasingly alarmed that his erratic leadership and policy blunders will damage GOP candidates in November, with the Wall Street Journal reporting the Cabinet member's "standing among some staff is at a new low.'

According to the report, Trump aides have taken direct control over Kennedy's department after polling revealed his vaccine skepticism and other health initiatives are deeply unpopular. Although Trump initially promised Kennedy he could "go wild on health," administration officials have grown increasingly frustrated with what they view as a series of catastrophic missteps.

Kennedy's standing among HHS staff has collapsed following multiple setbacks to his "Make America Healthy Again" agenda. Yet he remains in Trump's favor personally, according to those familiar with their relationship.

The litany of failures forced the White House to overhaul HHS leadership. Kennedy drew criticism for his tepid initial response to the measles outbreak in Texas. FDA officials shocked the department by unexpectedly approving a generic abortion pill. In January, the White House was blindsided by Kennedy's controversial grant cuts to mental health and substance abuse programs—cuts the department was forced to reverse after Capitol Hill outcry. The FDA has become a continuing source of chaos under Kennedy's stewardship.

Desperate to restore order, the White House hired Brad Smith, a DOGE operative, to audit HHS operations and determine what was failing. Smith's recommendations included a series of structural changes designed to end internal warfare and improve departmental functioning.

The intervention signals that Trump officials have lost confidence in Kennedy's ability to manage one of the government's largest agencies—even as the president maintains his public loyalty to the controversial Cabinet member.

You can read more here.


Republicans and MAHA moms are headed for a new showdown


Photo illustration (Roxanne Cooper/MidJourney)
March 12, 2026 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is fielding pressure from the White House to relax his controversial approach to vaccine policies as the midterms near, but his most steadfast supporters are pressing for more aggressive action — like restricting covid-19 vaccines and pesticide use — to carry out the Make America Healthy Again agenda.

The tensions risk fraying Kennedy’s dynamic MAHA coalition, potentially driving away critical supporters who helped fuel President Donald Trump’s 2024 election win.

The movement’s grassroots membership includes suburbanites, women, and independents who are generally newer entrants to the GOP and laser-focused on achieving certain results around the nation’s food supply and vaccines.

Promoting healthy foods tops their list and will be at the center of the White House’s pitch to voters during the midterm election cycle.

“President Trump’s mass appeal partly lies in his willingness to question our country’s broken status quo,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “That includes food standards and nutrition guidelines that have helped fuel America’s chronic disease epidemic. Overhauling our food supply and nutrition standards to deliver on the MAHA agenda remains a key priority for both the President and his administration.”

At the same time, with most Americans opposing efforts to undermine vaccines, the White House has cooled on Kennedy’s aggressive policies to curb vaccines and MAHA’s interest in tamping down environmental chemicals that are linked to disease.

The result: Republicans are realizing just how demanding the MAHA vote can be. Moms Across America leader Zen Honeycutt warned that Republicans are facing their biggest setback yet with the MAHA movement, after Trump signed an executive order to support production of glyphosate, a herbicide the World Health Organization has linked to cancer.

“It has caused the biggest uproar in MAHA,” Honeycutt said during a CNN interview in late February.


A White House Warning

Trump’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, cautioned in December that an embrace of Kennedy’s anti-vaccine policies could cost politicians their jobs this year.

Eight in 10 MAHA voters and 86% of all voters believe vaccines save lives, his poll of 1,000 voters in 35 competitive districts found.

“In the districts that will decide the control of the House of Representatives next year, Republican and Democratic candidates who support eliminating long standing vaccine requirements will pay a price in the election,” a memo on the poll stated.

The White House has since shaken up senior staffing at HHS, including removing Jim O’Neill from the deputy secretary role and his job as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which he curtailed the agency’s childhood vaccination recommendations. Ralph Abraham, a vaccine skeptic who as Louisiana’s surgeon general suspended its vaccination promotion program last year, stepped down as the CDC’s principal deputy director in late February.

Jay Bhattacharya, a doctor who said in congressional testimony that he doesn’t believe vaccines cause autism, is now running the CDC in addition to directing the National Institutes of Health.

Though Trump himself has frequently espoused doubts and mistruths about vaccines, polling around anti-vaccine policy has undoubtedly shaken the White House’s confidence during a tough midterm election year, said former U.S. Rep. Larry Bucshon, an Indiana Republican and retired doctor who left Congress last year.

Bucshon said Republicans can’t risk alienating voters, especially parents of young children who might be moved by Democratic attack ads on the topic at a time when hundreds of measles cases are popping up across the U.S.

“That’s the reason you’re seeing the White House get nervous about it,” Bucshon said. “This is just the political reality of it.”

Kennedy built some of his MAHA following with calls to end federal approval and recommendations for the covid vaccines during the pandemic. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a federal panel of outside experts who were handpicked by Kennedy to develop national vaccine recommendations, is expected to review and possibly withdraw its recommendation for covid shots. Its February meeting was postponed and is now scheduled for March 18-19, when the panel plans to discuss injuries from covid vaccines, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon confirmed on March 11.

“I’m not deaf to the calls that we need to get the covid vaccine mRNA products off the market. All I can say is stay tuned and wait for the upcoming ACIP meeting,” ACIP Vice Chair Robert Malone said on MJTruthUltra, a conservative account on the social platform X, before the meeting was postponed. “If the FDA won’t act, there are other entities that will.”

No Fury Like Scorned MAHA Moms

Bipartisan support is also extremely high — above 80% — for another core tenet of the MAHA agenda: eliminating the use of certain pesticides on crops.

But MAHA leaders were incensed when Trump issued a Feb. 18 executive order promoting the production of glyphosate, a chemical used in weed killers sprayed on U.S. crops and which Kennedy has railed against and sued over because of its reported links to cancer.

“There’s gonna be ups and downs, and there is zero question that this week was a down,” Calley Means, a senior adviser to the health secretary and a former White House employee, told a MAHA rally in Austin, Texas, on Feb. 26. “I am not going to gaslight or sugarcoat it: This glyphosate thing was extremely disappointing. Bobby’s disappointed.”

Despite deep unhappiness from MAHA followers, Kennedy endorsed Trump’s executive order defending access to such pesticides.

“I support President Trump’s Executive Order to bring agricultural chemical production back to the United States and end our near-total reliance on adversarial nations,” Kennedy wrote on social media.

Without offering policy changes, Kennedy promised a future agricultural system that “is less dependent on harmful chemicals.”

White House officials are now trying to downplay the executive order.

“The President’s executive order was not an endorsement of any product or practice,” Desai said in a statement.

But that’s done little to dampen criticism from leading MAHA influencers who had hoped, with Kennedy’s influence in the administration, that the chemical would be banned.

Some Democrats see an opening.

Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine earned cheers from MAHA loyalists for co-sponsoring legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to undo the executive order.

“The Trump Admin. cannot keep paying lip service to #MAHA while propping up Big Chemical like this and choosing corporate profits over Americans’ health,” Pingree said on X.

Vani Hari, a prominent MAHA influencer who promotes healthy eating, responded on X with a “HELL YES.”

‘Eat Real Food’

The White House and Kennedy are refocusing their messaging to emphasize one of the most popular elements of the MAHA platform: food.

At the start of the year, Kennedy unveiled new dietary guidelines that emphasize vegetables, fruits, and meats while urging Americans to avoid ultraprocessed foods.

Kennedy has leaned into his new “Eat Real Food” campaign, launching a nationwide tour in January. Ahead of the late-February MAHA rally, he stopped at a barbecue joint in Austin where he took photos with stacks of smoked ribs and grilled sausages. Large “Eat Real Food” signs have been provided for crowds of supporters to hold up during major announcements at HHS’ headquarters this year.

Focusing on nutrition will please MAHA moms, suburban swing voters, and conservatives alike, said Michael Burgess, a physician and former Republican representative from Texas.

“They keep them happy by talking about the food pyramid,” Burgess said. “That’s an area where there is broad, bipartisan support.”

Indeed, Fabrizio’s poll shows equal support — 95% — among respondents who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris and those who voted for Trump for requiring labeling of harmful ingredients in ultraprocessed foods.

Trump is keenly aware that Kennedy’s MAHA movement is key to his political survival. At a Cabinet meeting in January, Kennedy rattled off a list of his agency’s efforts researching autism and tackling high drug prices.

Trump leaned in at the table.

“I read an article today where they think Bobby is going to be really great for the Republican Party in the midterms,” Trump said, “so I have to be very careful that Bobby likes us.”



KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

.
Trump’s Environmental Massacre

The EPA’s decision to erase the value of lives lost or saved by regulations is a horror beyond the pale. It opens the door for government-sanctioned death with a baked-in cover-up.



The pictured oil refinery, owned by Exxon Mobil, is the second largest in the country on 28th February 2020 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States.
(Photo by Barry Lewis/InPictures via Getty Images


Derrick Z. Jackson
Mar 14, 2026
Common Dreams

Last March, I interviewed staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 5 headquarters in Chicago who were horrified by the Trump administration’s staff and funding cuts, which notably included eliminating environmental justice and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

The threat of those cuts was so severe that Brian Kelly, an on-site emergency coordinator based in Michigan, predicted: “People will die. There will be additional deaths if we roll back these protections.”

How many additional deaths? The Trump EPA will not say. As part of President Donald Trump’s crusade to destroy federal science and roll back environmental safeguards, his EPA announced recently that it will no longer consider the monetary value of saving lives by regulating fine particulate matter, commonly called soot, smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5) and ozone smog from vehicles, fossil-fuel-burning power plants, and other polluting industries.

In other words, the agency intends to conduct cost-benefit analyses by only considering the cost.
We Need Stronger Pollution Regs

The data documenting soot’s deadly damage even with environmental rules in place is voluminous, much coming from the federal government itself, suggesting that we need stronger regulations, not weaker ones.

A 1997 EPA report found the first 20 years of the 1970 Clean Air Act were so effective that 205,000 premature deaths were avoided from all air pollution sources in 1990. The same report concluded that the 1990 amendments to the law would save more than 230,000 lives a year by 2020 and prevent 2.4 million asthma attacks.

By disbanding DEI and environmental justice programs, the Trump administration is ensuring that communities of color are collateral damage in sucking the Earth dry of oil and gas and mining for the last lump of coal.

Even so, air pollution remains mortally high in a nation that is now the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas and stubbornly prioritizes individually owned vehicles over public transportation. A 2021 study funded by the EPA and published in the journal Science Advances found that PM 2.5 alone still accounts for 85,000 to 200,000 excess deaths a year.

The conclusions of nongovernmental studies echo the EPA’s own findings. A 2022 University of Wisconsin study, for example, estimated that if the United States eliminated all fine particulate, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation, vehicles, factories, and buildings, 53,200 premature deaths a year could be prevented, providing $600 billion in health benefits from avoided illness and mortality.
Drill Baby Drill’s Collateral Damage

The Trump EPA’s recent announcement is just another of a string of nonsensical—and dangerous—moves by the agency. They include abandoning the Paris Climate Accord and killing the agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding” determining that carbon pollution threatens human health, which the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) estimates will cut short the lives of as many as 58,000 people over the next 30 years due to additional pollution.

Taken together, the Trump administration’s assault on public health has the potential of triggering an environmental massacre, particularly among the most vulnerable Americans.

Because of our nation’s history of housing discrimination, communities of color, regardless of income, face more than twice the risk of exposure to PM 2.5 than white communities. According to the 2021 Sciences Advances study, this “phenomenon is systemic, holding for nearly all major sectors, as well as across states and urban and rural areas, income levels, and exposure levels…. Targeting locally important sources for mitigation could be one way to counter this persistence.”

By disbanding DEI and environmental justice programs, the Trump administration is ensuring that communities of color are collateral damage in sucking the Earth dry of oil and gas and mining for the last lump of coal. An August 2025 Science Advances study found that the life cycle of oil and gas extraction, storage, transporting, refining, and combustion results in 91,000 annual premature deaths due to exposure to PM 2.5, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. It found that, with rare exception, “Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native American groups experience the worst exposures and burdens for all life-cycle stages and pollutants.” A 2023 New England Journal of Medicine study, meanwhile, concluded that reducing PM 2.5 pollution alone would disproportionately benefit Blacks at all income levels as well as low-income whites.
EPA Now Stands for Every Polluter’s Ally

Without a single fact to back up its claim, the Trump EPA—led by the fossil fuel industry-friendly Lee Zeldin—stated it did away with calculating lives saved because prior estimates were done with “false precision and confidence.” In fact, the agency is now simply repeating the talking points of the oil and gas industry and the US Chamber of Commerce, which has a long history of lobbying Congress to resist climate legislation and filing endless amicus briefs on behalf of polluters to counter environmental lawsuits.

In 2018, during the first the Trump administration, the chamber asserted—also with no evidence—that previous to the Trump EPA, the agency “historically misinformed and misled the public by using inconsistent and opaque analytical and communication methods regarding costs and benefits.”

That same year, the Trump EPA offered a revealing nugget of information that was hardly opaque. It admitted that its effort to kill the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would have reined in power plant carbon pollution, would result in in as many as 1,400 premature deaths a year by 2030, and thousands more annual cases of respiratory diseases. At the time, Trump was also trying to roll back Obama-era clean air vehicle standards that were projected to save nearly 40,000 lives a year by 2030.

In its last year in office, the Biden administration proposed tightening PM 2.5 standards, estimating that it could prevent as many as 4,500 premature deaths in 2032 and lead to $46 billion in health benefits in 2032.

There is not a single word about protecting lives or lowering healthcare costs in the EPA’s February 12 press release announcing its repeal of the endangerment finding nor in its February 20 press release hailing the repeal of tighter mercury and air toxics standards enacted by the Biden administration. Instead, Zeldin claimed—without proof—that the air pollution rules would have “destroyed reliable American energy” and revoking the endangerment finding would save Americans more than $1.3 trillion, including an average cost savings of more than $2,400 on a new vehicle.

While Zeldin is trying to use the greater availability of cheaper, gas-guzzling cars as a lure to seduce the public to look the other way on environmental regulations, the pollution they emit will smoke the nation. EDF estimates that higher-polluting vehicles could, by 2055:Cost US drivers as much as $1.4 trillion in increased fuel costs;
Emit carbon pollution that will intensify climate change-related extreme weather events, costing $1.5 trillion to $4.2 trillion; and
Increase respiratory and heart disease, as well as the number of premature deaths, costing $170 billion to $500 billion.

None of that mattered to the first Trump administration, which admitted its regulatory rollbacks could kill people. When the second Trump administration barreled into office with its cutbacks and deep-sixing of environmental justice and DEI programs, staffers in the EPA Chicago Region 5 office feared the worst. They included Kayla Butler, a Superfund community involvement coordinator. The stories her team collects in the field of people living with toxic horrors are precisely the stories she said the Trump administration is “trying to erase.”

The EPA’s decision to erase the value of lives lost or saved by regulations is a horror beyond the pale. It opens the door for government-sanctioned death with a baked-in cover-up. With the death toll from air pollution still so high, the Trump EPA is burying the data with the bodies, so we will never know the cause.

This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.

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

Derrick Z. Jackson
Derrick Z. Jackson is a Pulitzer Prize finalist; a National Headliner and Scripps Howard winner; a 14-time winner from the National Association of Black Journalists; and co-author of The Puffin Plan (2020, Tumblehome), the 2021 winner in Teen Nonfiction from the Independent Book Publishers Association.
Full Bio >
GOP Farm Bill Set to Unleash Pesticide Use and Strip Animal Welfare Protections

The bill protects agrochemicals producers from lawsuits, and overturns food and pesticide safety laws and statutes.
March 14, 2026

A crop duster flying low while spraying an alfalfa field near Tracy, San Joaquin County, California.Bill and Brigitte Clough / Design Pics Editorial / Universal Images Group via Getty Images


The “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026” that is coming up for a House vote this spring is yet another GOP-led assault on the country’s food safety, warn public health organizations, environmental groups, and animal rights advocates, who are sounding the alarm over the five-year bill.

The House Committee on Agriculture passed the “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026” on March 5 by a 34-17 vote. All 27 Republicans on the committee backed the bill, and seven Democrats crossed the aisle to join them. The legislation will now head to Congress.

The 800-page document is being praised by Big Agriculture and industry groups across the nation, and Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pennsylvania), chairman of the committee, has described it as “ a collaboration between Republicans, Democrats, and stakeholders.”

But public health advocates warn that the bill is set to further erode well-being and health in the U.S., further deepening the hypocrisy of Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s repeated promise to “Make America Healthy Again.”

“Rather than address the economic crises facing America’s family farmers, this Farm Bill is a thinly veiled gift bag for Big Ag and pesticide manufacturers. It’s a massive slap in the face to people across the political spectrum demanding a healthier food system,” said Jason Davidson, a senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth U.S.


RFK Jr. Supports Trump Push to Ramp Up Glyphosate Output, Angering MAHA Backers
“This executive order reads like it was drafted in a chemical company boardroom,” one MAHA critic said. By Chris Walker , Truthout February 19, 2026


Pesticides


Some of the most contentious sections of the bill concern pesticides.

Section 10205 blocks consumers and farmers harmed by pesticides from suing companies over inadequate safety labeling. Section 10206 would overturn all state and local laws that protect food safety. Section 10207 would repeal federal statutes created to protect people and animals from pesticides.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) introduced an amendment that would have stripped these sections from the bill, but the effort was rejected by the committee.

“Once again, the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress are siding with chemical companies and choosing corporate profits over Americans’ health — while paying lip service to the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement. This Farm Bill is a gift to Big Chemical, plain and simple. It delivers exactly what giants like Bayer have spent years lobbying for: blanket immunity from lawsuits and the power to gut the state warning label laws that protect families, farmers, and children,” said the congresswoman in a statement.

Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman said the committee’s GOP majority have “passed a measure that has garnered across-the-board disapproval, except from those representing the vested interests of chemical companies and agribusiness.”

The push to shield chemical companies from liability is not occurring in a vacuum.

Shortly before the bill passed in committee, Bayer announced a proposed class settlement for the thousands of people who claim they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma from exposure to the weedkiller Roundup. Those impacted had formerly sued Monsanto, but Bayer inherited the lawsuits when it acquired the company in 2018. The company is not admitting to any liability, but the proposed settlement totals $7.25 billion.

The herbicide at the center of those lawsuits is glyphosate, which the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified as a “probable human carcinogen.” A day after the Bayer announcement, President Donald Trump invoked a wartime emergency authority to increase the domestic production of glyphosate. It’s a move that some insiders believe is directly connected to the lawsuits.

“The scope of this [litigation against Bayer] is way beyond anything we’ve ever seen in the pesticide context,” Nathan Donley, an environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Chemical & Engineering News. “We’re in a full-court press, basically, of Bayer trying to get out of its liabilities.”

When he ran for president in 2024, HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. called glyphosate “one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic.” However, he dutifully backed Trump’s order.

“Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” said Kennedy in a statement. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

Kennedy’s shift has angered many in the “MAHA” community who have supported the Trump administration. “MAHA Moms Turn Against Trump” declares a recent New York Times headline.

“Women feel like they were lied to, that MAHA movement is a sham,” Turning Point USA podcaster Alex Clark told the paper. “How am I supposed to rally these women to vote red in the midterms? How can we win their trust back? I am unsure if we can.”


Animal Rights


Section 12006 of the farm bill looks to overturn animal welfare laws by effectively adopting the “Save Our Bacon” Act, a Republican congressional effort that’s failed to gather support from more than 10 percent of the House.

That legislation takes aim at California’s Prop 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, which place limits on the sale of meat and eggs from farms where animals are not granted enough room to turn around, stand up, lie down, and fully extend their limbs. Both measures were overwhelmingly approved by state voters, but Big Agriculture lobbyists have consistently pushed for both laws to be overturned.

A coalition of pork producers, meat companies, and farmers recently gathered in Washington to call for the “Save Our Bacon” Act to be removed from the farm bill.

“Voters made their voices heard, and we agree with them that animals deserve space to move,” said Missouri hog farmer Russ Kremer. “Prop 12 gives small farms like ours the opportunity to survive during a time when agriculture is heavily consolidated and independent farmers are being pushed out. If Congress rolls back Prop 12, that’s a move against family farmers.”

The fight to topple these state laws comes amid a Department of Agriculture push to speed up the kill lines across U.S. slaughterhouses. The new draft rules propose increasing kill line speeds for chickens from 140 a minute to 175, turkeys from 55 to 60, and pig slaughterhouses would have no limit. The department has also proposed eliminating annual workplace safety reports at the plants.

Let Them Eat Contaminated Meat

The proposed farm bill also doubles down on the Trump administration’s Dietary Guidelines, which recommend that Americans eat significantly more meat. Instead of basing these recommendations on scientific research, the Trump team relied on nine experts, seven of whom had direct connections to the meat industry.

In addition to improving public health and reducing pollution, a decrease in meat consumption would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. A 2025 report from the scientific journal Nature Climate Change found that 11 million tons of meat is consumed in U.S. cities annually, resulting in roughly 329 million tons of carbon emissions.

Democratic committee members proposed amendments to the farm bill aimed at addressing the devastating Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts from Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” but these were rejected.

“Every member of the House Agriculture Committee represents families with low incomes who need SNAP to afford groceries, and it is deeply disappointing to see all Republicans and some Democratic members of the House Agriculture Committee vote to advance a bill that fails to deliver for these constituents,” said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a statement.

Instead, Trump’s reinforced dietary guidelines designate animal protein as a SNAP “incentive food” allowing retailers to bolster meat consumption by offering it to SNAP recipients at a discount. What quality of meat would these consumers be eating? As previously mentioned, the bill would prohibit states from taking action to protect their constituents from drugs and pathogens in their food supply.

“If passed by the House, this Farm Bill will move to the Senate, but this proposal should be dead on arrival,” wrote Food & Water Watch’s Lauren Borsheim. “A Farm Bill that ignores devastating SNAP cuts, weakens vital conservation programs, subsidizes factory farms, and shields pesticide corporations from accountability betrays the Farm Bill’s purpose — serving farmers, consumers, and rural communities.”



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


Michael Arria
Michael Arria is the U.S. correspondent for Mondoweiss. Follow him on Twitter: @michaelarria.

Secrets, sexism and hypocrisy: Inside the Murdochs' real succession drama



Ron Galella Ltd/Ron Galella Collection/Getty Images
March 13, 2026

Does the world need another biography of Rupert Murdoch? It depends what it has to say and who has written it.

Bonfire of the Murdochs, by journalist Gabriel Sherman, looks promising. He made his name with an exhaustively researched biography of long-running Fox News head and serial sexual harasser, Roger Ailes. The Loudest Voice in the Room (2014) has 98 pages of endnotes and a team of three fact-checkers. It was made into a series starring Russell Crowe as Ailes. Sherman was also the screenwriter of Donald Trump biopic, The Apprentice, which Trump fought hard to prevent being screened.

Promising credentials, yes, but what does Sherman add to the eight Murdoch biographies already published?

The first was Simon Regan’s business-oriented biography published in 1976. It has been forgotten, but not so George Munster’s A Paper Prince (1985), which laid out Murdoch’s deal-making modus operandi, nor William Shawcross’ 1992 semi-authorised work, which charted Murdoch’s creation of the first global media empire.

Michael Wolff’s The Man Who Owns the News (2008) painted the most vivid portrait of the Australian born media mogul. Flushed with the success of buying The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch agreed to more than 50 hours of interviews with Wolff and opened the doors of his notoriously secretive media empire to the Vanity Fair media columnist.

Wolff did report the Wall Street Journal takeover in detail, but he also retailed a breathtaking amount of industry and family gossip.

One example among many. He writes that Prudence, Murdoch’s daughter from his first marriage, gave him exasperated grooming advice after Murdoch botched a DIY makeover as he tried keeping up with Wendi Deng, his third wife who was the same age as his children.
“Dad, I understand about dyeing the hair and the age thing. Just go somewhere proper. What you need is very light highlights.” But he insists on doing it overthe sink because he doesn’t want anybody to know. Well, hello! Look in the mirror.Look at the pictures in the paper. It’s such a hatchet job.


Murdoch’s response? He told her she needed a face lift.

Murdoch’s response to Wolff’s biography was that it needed more than a face lift – it should not have been published with the errors it had. He did not sue for defamation, however. Wolff has since become an even more controversial figure: he is embroiled in suit and counter-suit with Donald and Melania Trump over Wolff’s claims about Trump’s relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The long-running struggle for succession in the Murdoch family famously inspired the brilliantly coruscating fictional television series Succession (2018–2023). Sherman’s is the first biography to deal with its resolution, which happened only last September, when Rupert Murdoch and his eldest son, Lachlan, succeeded in changing the terms of an apparently irrevocable family trust.

The trust had been created when Rupert and his second wife, Anna, separated in 1998. (She died on February 17 this year.) It was her attempt to put a brake on Murdoch’s continual pitting of his children, especially his sons, against each other in the quest to succeed him as head of News Corporation.

It didn’t work. Rupert’s plan for Lachlan to lead the company, continuing its hard right position led by Fox News, eventually succeeded. To a greater or lesser degree, the other children from his first two marriages – Prudence, Elisabeth and James – loathed what Fox News had become and, reportedly led by James, were prepared to use their votes in the family trust to oust Lachlan after Rupert died.

In the end, though, they agreed to sell their shares in the family trust for US$1.1 billion each. Grace and Chloe, the two children from Murdoch’s third marriage, are part of a newly drawn family trust with their own shares in News.

The machinations behind this episode were reported last year in two extraordinary pieces of journalism, by Jonathan Mahler and Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times, who were leaked 3,000 pages of court documents about the case, and by McKay Coppins in The Atlantic magazine. He secured a long, revealing interview with James Murdoch, who was labelled in Rupert and Lachlan’s legal materials the “troublesome beneficiary”.

For those without subscriptions to these publications, my colleague, Andrew Dodd, and I discussed the case in The Conversation here and here.

An outstanding journalist

Sherman, another outstanding journalist, has been reporting on the Murdochs since 2008. Ailes threatened him with legal action and engineered a smear campaign over The Loudest Voice in the Room, as Sherman calmly detailed in “A Note on Sources” at the end of the book. It was Sherman who in 2016 broke the news about Fox News presenter Gretchen Carlson’s sexual harassment suit against Ailes that led to his ousting from the network.

In 2018, he revealed Murdoch came close to death after a fall on Lachlan’s maxi-yacht while sailing in the Caribbean.

Sherman also had the inside scoop on the end of Murdoch’s fourth marriage in 2022. The then 91-year-old mogul not only broke up by text with his wife, supermodel and actor Jerry Hall, but included in the divorce terms a demand she not give story ideas to the scriptwriters of Succession!

Hall later realised the marriage had ended, in Murdoch’s eyes, some time before, when he met Ann Lesley Smith, a 65-year-old former dental hygienist turned conservative radio host and follower of QAnon-style conspiracy theories. At a dinner at Murdoch’s ranch in Carmel, Smith gushed that Murdoch and Fox News were the saviours of democracy, and offered to clean his teeth for him.

Murdoch proposed to Smith in early 2023, but he soon called off the wedding after another dinner, where she told then Fox News host Tucker Carlson he was a messenger from God. Hall felt humiliated by Murdoch’s treatment of her but told friends she took satisfaction in making an effigy of him, tying dental floss around its neck and burning it on the barbecue.

All these disclosures, and gossip, are included in Bonfire of the Murdochs. Indeed, Sherman’s reporting, for New York and Vanity Fair magazines, forms a good deal of the book. If you have already read his lengthy articles, there is not much new here. But if you haven’t, or if you are confused by the countless deals and complex financial/political transactions of Murdoch’s seven-decades-plus career in media, this biography is well worth reading.

‘Destroyed everything he loved’

At 241 pages, it has the virtue, as well as the shortcoming, of being the shortest of the Murdoch biographies. Sherman has a gift for succinctly summarising key themes.

The first is that more than most, Murdoch’s media empire is secretive. Remember, his plan to change the family trust was supposed to be heard behind closed doors. We only know about it because The New York Times was leaked the court records, which revealed Murdoch’s testimony. As Sherman puts it: “Rupert crafted narratives in the shadows, but the courtroom would require him to do it in the open.”

Initially, it did not go well for Murdoch. Under cross-examination, his determination to get his way no matter what and his sexism towards his daughters was revealed.

The second theme is the extent to which Murdoch will ignore the stated mission of his media outlets – report what is happening accurately – if it aligns with his commercial goals. During the global pandemic, while Fox News hosts fulminated about lockdowns and advocated dubious treatments like hydroxychloroquine, Murdoch followed the science and, Sherman reports, was one of the first in the world to be vaccinated, in December 2020.

“He was scared for himself and was very careful,” a person who spoke to Murdoch at the time recalled for Sherman. Questioned about the disconnect between his network’s coverage and his own behaviour, Murdoch would deflect responsibility for the presenters’ commentary, even though this seeming passivity contrasted sharply with his history of editorial interference.

As Sherman comments: “The hypocrisy revealed something essential about Rupert’s worldview: he had always been able to separate his personal beliefs from his business interests.” He adds that Murdoch thought then president, Donald Trump, grievously mishandled the pandemic but refused to use his position as head of Fox to pressure the president to treat it seriously.

Nor did Murdoch take any responsibility when a friend told him the channel was killing its elderly audience. According to one of Sherman’s sources, he replied: “They’re dying from old age and other illnesses, but COVID was being blamed.”

The biographer quotes other sources who say the quid pro quo was that Murdoch had successfully lobbied Trump in his first term to take action against Facebook and Google, who were winning advertising revenue from News (along with other legacy media companies) and to open up land for fracking, which was to boost the value of Murdoch’s fossil fuel investments.

The third theme is that Murdoch built the world’s first global media empire but has always run his companies as a family business, with him as the first and ultimate decision-maker. Nimbleness is the advantage of this approach. As with any autocratically run organisation, though, there are disadvantages. Among them is that no one has a perfect strike rate for success.

Along the way, talented executives such as Barry Diller, former chief executive at Twentieth Century Fox or Chase Carey, former top executive at 21st Century Fox, knew – or found out – that their path to the top was blocked not only by the company’s head, but by Murdoch’s desire to advance or protect family members. Murdoch once told shareholders complaining about nepotism: “If you don’t like it, sell your shares.”

From the 1950s, when Murdoch was the “boy publisher” of the afternoon newspaper he inherited from his father, the Adelaide News, he behaved, Sherman writes, as though “promises were like inconvenient facts: fungible when they got in the way of profit.” The newspaper’s editor, Rohan Rivett, was the first among several, alongside numerous politicians, who learnt this to their cost.

The fourth theme is that Murdoch has always wanted his children involved in his business, but only on his terms. “Growing up,” Sherman writes, “the children’s relationship to their father was expressed through the business, making them equate paternal love with corporate advancement.”

Where earlier writers have drawn parallels with Shakespeare’s King Lear, Sherman thinks King Midas is a more appropriate comparison.
Like the mythical monarch whose touch turned everything to gold, Rupert built a $17 billion fortune but destroyed everything he loved in the process. His media outlets stoked hatred and division on an industrial scale, and amassing that wealthrequired him to damage virtually anything he touched: the environment, women’srights, the Republican Party, truth, decency – even his own family.


The weakest part

These are potent themes that resonate with those of us living in the country of Murdoch’s origin, which brings us to the book’s shortcoming. Australia features early on, but this is the weakest part of the book. Murdoch’s early years are well covered in Munster and Shawcross’s biographies and more recently have been given detailed attention in Walter Marsh’s Young Rupert (2023).

There are basic errors: The Daily Mirror in Sydney, which Murdoch bought in 1960, is misnamed The Mirror, while the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd., which he bought in 1987, becomes the Herald Times Group. Nor does it help that on the book’s final page, Sherman writes “Rupert was with his fourth wife while his children were scattered across the globe” – when Murdoch had discarded Jerry Hall in 2022 and was now married a fifth time, to Elena Zhukova.

Fourth, fifth? It’s easy to lose count. More seriously, in buying the HWT, Murdoch became the dominant newspaper owner in Australia, but his control did not account for 75% of the market, as Sherman writes. It is more like 60% to 65%, depending on whether you use circulation or number of newspapers as a measure.

Murdoch’s early years in Australia are briskly dealt with in chapter one, before he moves on in his relentless quest to acquire more media properties in the United Kingdom and the US. This is true as far as it goes, but once Murdoch does head north, his biographer loses almost all interest in how Australia is faring – even, or especially actually, after Murdoch acquires the HWT.

The same is true to a lesser extent with Sherman’s treatment of the UK. The phone hacking scandal is covered, of course, but not much else is once Murdoch arrives in New York in the mid-seventies.

What is lost, then, in Sherman’s compression, is context for events. Such as: where did the phone hacking culture come from? What lengths did News go to in denying the practice went beyond two “rogue reporters” or in obstructing official inquiries? Why have they since paid so much money settling with phone hacking victims, rather than going to court?

Missing, too, is any sense of the connections between Murdoch’s media outlets in the three main countries in which News operates. Has the hostile coverage of trans people been imported from Fox News to Sky News Australia? What affect has his media outlets’ campaigning against action on climate change had across these three countries?

These, and others, are relevant questions to ask about a global media empire. Rupert Murdoch may have handed over the company to Lachlan in 2023, but he led it for 70 years, he created its culture and he still wields influence. In case it passed you by, it was Rupert Murdoch – not Lachlan, according to the reports – who in February had a private dinner at the White House with US president Donald Trump.


Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
\
Report reveals fundamentalist extremism spreading through Trump's Pentagon


President Donald Trump reviews the troops in Emancipation Hall in Washington, D.C., during his Inauguration ceremony on Jan. 20, 2024. GREG NASH/POOL VIA REUTERS

March 13, 2026
ALTERNET


At a Pentagon recent press briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth closed his remarks with a reading from the Bible’s Book of Psalms, ending with “Amen.”

That was not the first time Hegseth has used prominent Christian declarations in public, and it’s apparently bleeding over to others in the military. Some members of Congress are now calling for a Department of Defense investigation into military officers allegedly invoking the Bible in pursuit of the Iran war.

What is clear is that Hegseth and others are putting an evangelical Christian nationalist spin on a range of things, from Charlie Kirk's murder to the military and Iran. That is fraught with implications during a war with a nation where the main religion is Islam.

Hegseth has been hosting monthly worship services, overlaying Scripture on images of fighter jets and missile systems, and telling assembled troops the country needed to be “on bended knee, recognizing the providence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

That, says the Religion News Service (RNS) “raises the uncomfortable question” of what the language of Christianity means for the DoG while at war.

Diving into that question, the RNS repeated an interview that aired last year on the podcast “Complexified” between host Amanda Henderson and RNS reporter Jack Jenkins.

Jenkins said that historically, religious expression in the U.S. military is not uncommon. “We’ve had many a military leader reference God or Christianity at some point in some sort of vague ways that are often kind of considered part of what’s referred to as the civil religion of the United States — kind of these more vague appeals,” Jenkins said. The Pentagon, Jenkins notes, has chaplains, hosts Mass five times a week, and houses a chapel that regularly holds worship services for a myriad of different faith traditions.

But Hegseth’s approach seems to center his form of Christianity, Jenkins said.

Hegseth spoke at the Charlie Kirk memorial and once again seemed to center his own version of Christianity rather than the more traditional vague invocations, Jenkins said.

“He again made this overt appeal to Americans to also embrace the specific kind of Christianity that he was modeling,” Jenkins said. Now, he’s not saying, like, ‘Join my denomination.’ But it’s very clearly coming from an evangelical Christian space.”

Another way that is being demonstrated is in military recruitment videos. Many of the promotional videos for the U.S. military overlay imagery of weapons of war and service members with a Bible verse.

That raises the question of whether they’re intentionally trying to recruit people “with the idea that the U.S. military is also something that can be held in concert with one specifically evangelical Christian faith,” Jenkins said.

Whether there has been pushback on this overt religion trend is unclear, Jenkins said. But given its ongoing presence in the public proclamations, an order to halt is unlikely.