Sunday, March 15, 2026

Trump’s panicked plea goes largely ignored by world leaders: 'No country stepped forward’

Alexander Willis
March 15, 2026 
RAW STORY

President Donald Trump issued a plea Saturday to several countries in the hopes that they would “send ships” to a major shipping route off the coast of Iran to help the United States’ war effort against the Middle East nation, a plea that as of Sunday afternoon appeared to go largely ignored.

In response to the U.S.-Israeli joint military siege launched late last month, Iran has vowed to attack any sea vessels aligned with the United States and its allies that attempt to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping route through which 20% of the world’s oil trade flows. As a result, oil prices have skyrocketed, reportedly sparking panic within the Trump administration.

“Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday.

Well over 24 hours later, however, Trump’s plea was “met with little in the way of immediate commitments from the nations he named,” The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

The strongest response Trump received was from South Korea, with its Foreign Ministry saying that it “takes note” of Trump’s request and that it would “closely coordinate and carefully review” the ongoing conflict, Nikkei Asia reported Sunday.

The U.S.-Israeli siege on Iran has rattled global stability and sent “tremors” through the world economy, leading to the International Energy Agency announcing on Sunday the largest release of its emergency oil stockpiles in history.

Trump ridiculed for 'sending out invitations to WWIII' as he 'pleads' allies for Iran help


David McAfee
March 14, 2026 
RAW STORY

President Donald J. Trump spurred a variety of alarmed reactions on Saturday after he asked other countries to help the U.S. with the Iran war amid escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.

"The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way," Trump wrote, before shifting to call for international cooperation. He urged countries reliant on oil transit through the strait to "take care of that passage," promising substantial U.S. assistance and coordination to ensure "everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well." Trump framed the effort as a long-overdue "team" approach that would foster "Harmony, Security, and Everlasting Peace!"

The post drew immediate online backlash, with critics highlighting what they saw as a glaring contradiction: claiming total Iranian defeat while seeking help to secure the vital waterway, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil flows.

Professor Phillips P. O'Brien, a noted historian and strategist, described the message as "a work of art" worthy of preservation. He pointed out the irony: if Iran's military capability is "100% destroyed," why plead with frequently insulted allies to intervene in the Gulf?

Online reactions spread rapidly. PatriotTakes, which monitors right-wing extremism, quipped that Trump was "sending out invitations to WWIII."

MS NOW's Chris Hayes called it an "instant classic."

Detractors mocked the pivot as evidence of overreach in the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict, where recent airstrikes—including on Kharg Island's military targets—have disrupted shipping but not fully neutralized threats like mines or asymmetric attacks. Supporters, however, viewed it as pragmatic leadership, emphasizing U.S. dominance and the need for shared burden in global security.

The statement also underscores broader challenges in Trump's foreign policy approach: bold claims of triumph paired with appeals for multilateral support in a region where unilateral action has proven costly. As oil prices surge and tanker traffic remains vulnerable, the post highlights the delicate balance between projecting strength and acknowledging real-world limitations in securing critical chokepoints.



Tense meeting looms for Trump as world leader vows to be 'candid' about US-sparked chaos

Alexander Willis
March 15, 2026 
RAW STORY


Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi reacts as Donald Trump speaks in Yokosuka, Japan. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

President Donald Trump’s upcoming meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi may end up becoming a tense standoff after the newly re-elected leader vowed to be “candid” about the economic pain the Trump administration had inflicted on the East Asian nation.

“If President Donald Trump is expecting effusive praise for his war on Iran when Japan’s prime minister arrives in Washington on Thursday, he is likely to be disappointed,” wrote Bronwen Maddox, director of the British foreign-policy think tank Chatham House in the organization’s report Sunday.

“Sanae Takaichi, re-elected in February in a landslide victory, says she intends to be ‘candid’ in pointing out that Japan’s oil-dependent economy is suffering badly from the conflict.”

Oval Office visits, Maddox noted, have often “become bear traps” for foreign leaders, perhaps most notably for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy when he was chastised last year by Trump and Vice President JD Vance for nearly an hour. However, given the historic disruption to oil trade sparked by the Trump administration’s attack on Iran, Takaichi is expected to be blunt with Trump, Maddox wrote.

“She will want reassurance about the US’s security umbrella, the cornerstone of Japanese foreign policy since 1945,” Maddox wrote. “Trump is likely to repeat instead his demand for Japan to pay more for its own defence.”

As the world’s fifth largest importer of oil, Japan’s economy has been hit hard by the disruption in oil trade, with 95% of Japan’s oil imports coming from the Middle East. Japan’s cost of living has spiked as a result, leading Maddox to predict Takaichi may “want to use the good rapport she struck up with the U.S. president at a meeting in October to make the point about the impact of the war on other countries.”

Interview

Republicans and Democrats Are United in Their War on the Unhoused

Theo Henderson, creator of the “We the Unhoused” podcast, discusses organizing against demonization of unhoused people.
March 12, 2026

Homeless advocates attend a sweeps-free sanctuary protest outside of City Hall in Oakland, California, on December 17, 2024.Jane Tyska / Digital First Media / East Bay Times via Getty Images

Former schoolteacher Theo Henderson had been unhoused for six years when he launched the “We the Unhoused” podcast in 2019 from a park in Los Angeles’s Chinatown.

Henderson became unhoused in 2013 when he was evicted after losing his job and falling into medical debt due to spiraling costs related to his diabetes. When he began documenting his experiences and those of his unhoused neighbors back in 2019, three people were dying on the streets of Los Angeles County per day. Now, according to just-released public health data from 2024, that number has doubled to an average of six deaths per day, making questions of who gets to live and exist in public more urgent than ever.

Since Henderson started his podcast, his work has been featured in the BBC, Los Angeles Times, VICE, and CNN. In 2022 he was named activist-in-residence at the UCLA Luskin Institute on Inequality and Democracy.

In this exclusive interview with Truthout, Henderson unpacks the bipartisan machinery that perpetuates houselessness and renders unhoused people as disposable. He shares his analysis of how anti-camping ordinances like the one in Los Angeles function as “the new Jim Crow,” how Democrats and Republicans are united in their war on the poor, and how AI-powered medical diagnostics for unhoused populations echo the Tuskegee experiments. He points to J-Town Action and Solidarity as a mutual aid network that deserves our support.

Leah Harris: I’m thinking back to December 2019 when we connected on Twitter, after the first Trump regime held a mental health summit that previewed many of the policies they are trying to enact against unhoused people now. You had just started “We the Unhoused.” What led you in that moment to begin doing the podcast?


San Jose Is Displacing Its Unhoused Residents to Prepare for Super Bowl Tourism
The city’s use of temporary shelters harms affordable housing efforts and merely delays displacement of unhoused people. By Ngakiya Camara , Truthout February 7, 2026


Theo Henderson: I was literally living on the streets creating this podcast because I saw an alarming type of conversation. It relegated unhoused people to “substance users” and “mentally ill.” It didn’t cover my story or the people I knew that were living on the streets. I created the show as a way for unhoused people to feel free and safe to tell their stories without being exploited. I also felt that it was important to tell my story because I was out here due to a medical mishap. Trying to get back on your feet is not as simple as people make it out to be.

The conversations started to open up different intersections of how unhoused people are affected in every environment — from mental health to substance use, to people having medical emergencies. Like the gentleman whose wife was terminally ill and passed away. They used their savings to try to save her, but they were unsuccessful. He ended up sleeping across the street from the building that he used to work in.

Surprisingly, people listened. They were impacted. That’s one of the things mainstream media misses: the dignity of people telling their stories without being judged.

We’ve been talking for a long time about how the media and politicians demonize unhoused people to justify all manner of repressive actions, sweeps, laws, kidnapping, disappearance, and neglect.

When I first started out, it was three unhoused people dying a day. It was a number that could easily be dismissed or ignored, with the atrocities that we’re seeing in real time overseas. Now, it’s seven unhoused people that are dying a day. We are walking past people who are dying, and we don’t have the same outrage. We are very quick to criminalize. But we don’t talk about the nuances that put people in such a perilous position.


“Once you’re able to demonize people, then it’s much easier to criminalize them.”

Look at what they’re doing with the undocumented community. They’re putting them in concentration camps and calling them “detention centers,” putting children in these places, making them feel it is their fault. That is the same narrative that they use with unhoused people: “The reason you’re out here is because you refuse help or you like being out there.”

Once you’re able to demonize people, then it’s much easier to criminalize them.

What is your response to federal initiatives like Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s STREETS Initiative at the United States Department of Health and Human Services — initiatives that are all about disappearing unhoused people into involuntary mental health and drug treatment?

We keep talking among activist circles that they want to put unhoused people in warehouses and create the most carceral type of solution. One, erasing them from their humanity, but also cutting off their ability to speak out and let everybody know what’s happening.

Trump is trying to cut off money and services for unhoused people and housing-insecure people. If you take the money from people who want to be housed and want services to get off the street, where are they going to go? They’re going to go back on the street. Now they’ve got to deal with the hostility and hatred of the state and the city.

Over the past six years we’re seeing liberals and Democrats increasingly adopt the punitive approach to houselessness embraced by the Republican right. I’m thinking specifically about Gov. Gavin Newsom and his CARE Court.

California is a Democratic state that is basically aligned with Republican policies. They just hide it because they couch it in language of care. Democrats and Republicans are united in demonizing unhoused people.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is out there attacking Trump, but he’s not talking about how he’s also OK with targeting unhoused people. Before Trump’s executive order targeting unhoused people, Newsom had his own executive order along the same lines, that if unhoused people do not accept treatment, then they can be arrested on state property.

Newsom is no friend to unhoused people. He’s got this “encampment resolution fund”: If you criminalize unhoused people, then you’re able to get funding. If you don’t, then the funding gets taken away. So cities adopt these aggressive policies. This kind of extortion is commonplace


.
Theo Henderson, the founder of the “We the Unhoused” podcast, speaks into a megaphone at a protest in Los Angeles, California, in October 2021.WeTheUnhoused.com

You’ve long been speaking out about anti-camping ordinances, like the one created by Section 41.18 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, and their impact on communities.

I keep saying that 41.18 is the new Jim Crow. It makes it against the law for anybody to sit, sleep, or lie in any place the Los Angeles City Council designates as a “special enforcement zone.” There is no accountability when they ticket you and put you in jail. The fine is over $2,500. An unhoused person is definitely not sitting around with $2,500. Now they’re even using this ordinance to ticket people who are protesting against ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement].

We also have a dichotomy between housed undocumented workers and undocumented workers who are unhoused. When we’ve seen video of housed undocumented persons being snatched up, there are people speaking out for them, fighting for them. How many cases have you heard on mainstream media about undocumented unhoused people that have been snatched? Look how easy it is to rip them away and have them disappear, because there is no formalized way to follow them.

Houselessness is this vortex that people want to avoid, but we can’t. If we’re talking about the injustices of Gaza, if we’re talking about the injustices of ICE, we have to understand that the unhoused community that you walk past in Los Angeles has skyrocketed from three unhoused people dying per day to seven [in 2023].

You just got back from an action where community members paid Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez a visit. Can you tell us more about that?

It’s one thing when politicians are like Soto-Martínez’s predecessor, Mitch O’Farrell, who was openly anti-unhoused people. It’s another thing when you’re Soto-Martínez, campaigning against the sweeps and 41.18. You get elected by people that believe that you’re going to stop all of these harmful sweeps. And then you turn around and you just don’t say anything. For some reason, he feels it’s not effective to talk about police harassment, what they’re doing to unhoused people in his district, Echo Park. The issue is exposing the light on who we vote for, who we put our trust in, who is turning to the dark side.

I made a comment today: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. makes it very clear that society is not going to remember the actions only of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people, or the “claimed” good people. So we have to ask ourselves: Which type of people are we?

Talk about how so many of these policy decisions derive from a eugenics mindset fueled by big business interests, like how the business improvement districts (BIDs) and the big city mayors are working together here to disappear folks?

Politicians and advocates keep saying that unhoused people are “service-resistant.” But we just don’t want this endless cycle of “services” that end up with us back on the street. They will offer temporary solutions where they’re going to throw people out in three months, and when they refuse, they say, “See. They don’t want help.” People actually believe that.

We don’t want to lose our belongings, only to end up back on the street. We want housing. If you are sincere, give us permanent supportive housing, so we don’t have to be in the neighborhood with these BIDs and NIMBYs [proponents of a “Not In My Backyard” mentality] running around targeting us. They go on sites like Nextdoor or Citizen. They find ways to aggressively target unhoused people to remove them from the neighborhood.

Republicans blame Democratic leaders for not doing anything. But the fact of the matter is, if they really wanted things done, they would permanently house people. They don’t want to, because they know this is a hot-button issue. They can count on people getting up in arms against the unhoused community.

Speaking of unholy alliances, how about this startup deploying AI to diagnose and provide treatment to unhoused folks in Los Angeles?

Look at the Tuskegee experiment, how they experimented on a vulnerable population that couldn’t raise a fuss. Unhoused people are a vulnerable population, so that means they can do what they want.

You have an AI machine that speaks to people, transcribes what they say, and diagnoses and prescribes medication. But just because someone may have a similar diagnosis, you have to consider other factors. I’m an African American male. I have diabetes, but my diabetes is different. The medication has to be more layered because I’ve had aggressive surgery after being stabbed. AI can’t know that. A doctor examines me and asks, “Did you have extensive surgery?” If you don’t do that and a person has a reaction or dies, who holds this agency accountable? Is there any inquiry to create justice for unhoused people?

There’s a high rate of unhoused African Americans with sickle cell anemia that AI won’t recognize. Or health issues that present as something else. Without background, it’s easy to make an error.

I wouldn’t feel OK having AI treat me. It’s already hard enough for Black people to get adequate care from living, breathing doctors.

In addition to your podcast that directly uplifts the voices of unhoused people and activists, what are other efforts that people can support?

J-Town Action and Solidarity. We’ve been working together close to six years creating direct mutual aid. There’s a huge food deficit in Los Angeles. Now, not only unhoused people come to our mutual aid meetups, there are food-insecure housed people coming. I would lean toward J-Town to get educated on the realities of what’s going on.

I think because of the ICE assassinations of Renee Nicole Good, Keith Porter Jr., and Alex Pretti, housed people are becoming more aware, more distrustful of the scripted narratives. But they don’t always know how to find help. So I would encourage them to start by listening to “We the Unhoused” — both the older episodes on YouTube and newer ones on iHeart.

Activists have told me that they don’t listen to the show because it is “long.” The reason it’s long is because you are getting people who finally have a platform to tell their story. If you can look at “Game of Thrones” or Netflix movies for two to three hours, you can take the time to listen to unhoused voices and the realities they face



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.


Leah Ida Harris

Leah Ida Harris is an abolitionist writer whose work centers on resistance to carceral policies of force and coercion. Their forthcoming book, Noncompliant: A Family History of the Asylum (Haymarket Books) details the violent history — and grim resurgence — of the asylum in America through a multi-generational story of involuntary psychiatric treatment.
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 >