Saturday, June 13, 2026

Under Healthcare ‘Dystopia’ Envisioned by Trump, Cash-Strapped Patients Would Take Out Loans From Insurers

“This could ruin people’s finances, while creating a financial incentive for insurers to deny coverage,” said one Democratic congresswoman.



A medical billing statement showing a past due amount.
(Photo by Getty Images)



Julia Conley
Jun 12, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

After the Republican Party’s decision to terminate subsidies that had significantly reduced healthcare costs under the Affordable Care Act for 22 million people, the White House is considering a new way to—officials claim—“help” Americans who face massive medical bills, either due to high-deductible plans that don’t cover routine costs or because of emergency expenses.

The proposal, though, could just shift “who [the patients] owe the debt to,” as one doctor and researcher told The New York Times, which reported Thursday on the Trump administration’s proposal to allow people to take out loans directly from their health insurance companies when they can’t afford to pay a hospital or doctor’s office out of pocket—and then pay the insurance company back, likely with interest.

“Hard to top this level of dystopia,” said one writer in response to the Times report. “Have health insurance through the ACA? The Trump administration is going to turn your health insurer into a loan shark you borrow money from if you can’t afford to pay your portion of medical procedures.”

As the newspaper was reported, the provision is buried in a 1,121-page final rule issued last month regarding how the ACA will be regulated next year.

The Trump administration is planning to significantly expand the number of Americans who are eligible for high-deductible “catastrophic” health insurance plans that provide no coverage for day-to-day medical expenses.

“We note that multiyear and 1-year catastrophic plans may be able to offer relief from the high deductible and maximum annual limitation on cost sharing through other mechanisms,” reads the final rule. “For example, issuers of catastrophic plans could consider financing the deductible by providing enrollees a loan.”

Currently, the average annual deductible for people insured under the ACA is nearly $4,000, and about 40% of enrollees this year have “Bronze” plans, which have an out-of-pocket maximum that’s over $10,000 for an individual, likely leaving many people having to pay thousands of dollars in medical expenses despite having coverage.

By 2028, as Common Dreams reported earlier this year, catastrophic plans with lower premiums could have deductibles as high as $31,000 for families.

The plan to shift more people onto expensive plans that provide less coverage for day-to-day medical care—and to push patients to take out loans from their insurers—comes as about one-third of Americans, even those with insurance, report skipping meals or cutting back on other expenses to afford their medical bills.

The Times reported that at least one major health insurer—UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest—is already equipped to start lending patients money to cover unexpected medical bills. The company operates a bank that administers loans to doctors and offers health savings accounts.

Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) said the latest proposal from the White House shows that President Donald Trump “is destroying healthcare from all sides.”




The advocacy group Protect Our Care said the “suggestion” buried in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ final rule “is not only out of touch, it is cruel—accruing medical debt only adds to families’ financial burdens.”

“While working families drown in the high cost of living, the Trump administration’s answer to the healthcare affordability crisis they created is to throw people an anchor made of medical debt and call it relief,” said Leslie Dach, chair of Protect Our Care. “Trump and Republicans had a simple, popular fix sitting right in front of their faces—extending the ACA tax credits—but they killed it anyway, triggering premiums to double, triple, or even quadruple for millions of working families, all to make billionaires and big corporations even richer.”

“Americans are being bankrupted by crushing medical debt, and this administration isn’t lifting a finger to help—it’s busy shoveling more people into that hole,” said Dach. “Voters will remember this foolishness at the ballot box in November, just you wait.”

Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for a universal, single-payer healthcare system for New York state, suggested the proposal makes the latest case for a federal, government-funded healthcare program similar to those in other wealthy countries, which would end the healthcare profit motive by expanding the existing Medicare system to the entire US population.

“Letting Americans take out loans to afford healthcare forces Americans deeper into debt and drives up profits for the health insurance industry,” said D’Arrigo. “Abolish the health insurance industry. Demand Medicare for All.”


Court Blocks ‘Illegal’ Trump Rule That Created Barriers to Affordable Care Act Coverage

With eligibility verification and fees, the rule was projected to force 2 million people to drop their insurance, said cities and advocacy groups that sued the administration.



A. Michael Khoury stands outside of his Leading Insurance Agency, which offers plans under the Affordable Care Act, on January 28, 2021 in Miami, Florida.
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


Julia Conley
Jun 12, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Officials in several cities joined advocacy groups in celebrating a federal court ruling Friday that blocked the Trump administration’s rule which, they argued in a lawsuit, illegally imposed new fees and created barriers “that would make it harder—and in some cases impossible—for people to get and keep affordable health insurance.”

The cities of Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore; and Chicago were among the plaintiffs in a case filed last week in the US District Court of Maryland against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and other Trump officials, arguing that the so-called “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” rule would destabilize the insurance market and penalize vulnerable families, “rather than promoting affordability.”

The rule was introduced in May, months after Affordable Care Act subsidies that had made ACA insurance premiums more affordable for millions of people were allowed to expire by Republicans in Congress. More than 1 million fewer Americans signed up for coverage in ACA exchanges after the tax credits expired, and the Trump administration claimed that the new rule’s provision of more “catastrophic” insurance plans would give more “choice” to people who couldn’t afford plans that cover more healthcare needs.

The rule also required additional verification for low-income households before they enroll in ACA plans, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz claiming the new requirement “strengthens eligibility checks, cracks down on abuse, and gives insurers more flexibility to offer affordable, consumer-focused coverage options.”

“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage.”

The verification requirements and new fees could cause as many as 2 million people to drop their coverage, said Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, as well as raising annual costs by about $700 for families.

“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage, negating the ACA’s goal of extending affordable health coverage to all Americans, and instead increasing the population of underinsured and uninsured Americans,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.

In the ruling on Friday, US District Judge Brendan Hurson vacated several provisions of the rule, including ones that revoked guaranteed insurance coverage for people with past-due premiums; required eligibility verification for the special ACA enrollment period; and imposed a $5 premium penalty on people who automatically reenrolled in their plans.

Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the rule’s provisions were among “the Trump-Vance administration’s illegal attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act.”

“This ruling is a significant win for millions of Americans, including thousands in Ohio, who would have been denied coverage or seen their out-of-pocket costs skyrocket due to this president and his administration,” said Klein. “We will continue to fight to protect healthcare coverage for all Americans whenever it’s threatened.”

Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, a small business advocacy group that also joined the lawsuit, said that “the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act would have increased costs, created unnecessary barriers to coverage, and made it harder for entrepreneurs and workers to get the care they need.”

“Small business owners cannot grow their businesses when healthcare becomes more expensive and less accessible,” said Trent. “We are grateful that the court has protected these critical safeguards and reaffirmed that affordable healthcare remains essential to a strong economy and thriving Main Streets across the country.”

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott also applauded the ruling, but emphasized that healthcare advocates’ “work is not over.”

As Common Dreams reported Friday, tied up in the Trump administration’s push for more Americans to use high-deductible catastrophic insurance—which is likely to present families with high out-of-pocket costs—is a plan to push households into more medical debt by allowing them to take out loans directly from their health insurance companies.

“We will continue to fight back against any attempts by this administration to slash protections under the ACA,” said Scott, “and will not stop fighting until every person in this nation has access to the affordable, quality healthcare they deserve.”


Why the World Must Not Look Away From Gaza

The Israeli prime minister has made it explicitly clear that he has no intention of following any peace road map, planning instead for the permanent incremental takeover of Gaza.



Palestinians fill plastic containers and cans with water distributed by tankers as they struggle with a severe water crisis caused by heavy damage to infrastructure from Israeli attacks in Gaza City, Gaza on January 13, 2026.
(Photo by Abdalhkem Abu Riash/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Ramzy Baroud
Jun 12, 2026
Common Dreams

Gaza requires urgent international attention.

What is happening in the besieged and devastated strip at the moment by far exceeds an unfolding humanitarian disaster; it is a calculated geopolitical reshaping. Israel is actively executing a plan to permanently occupy the vast majority of Gaza, with consequences that require little elaboration considering what we already know about the ongoing genocide.

Currently, much of the international debate centers on a single official: Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov. The former United Nations special coordinator has been designated by the United States as the executive director of the Trump administration’s newly established ‘Board of Peace’—an international council founded to oversee the implementation of Washington’s 20-point Gaza road map.

The issue, however, is much bigger than a single Washington-backed bureaucrat. A growing number of Palestinians and political analysts accuse Mladenov of manufacturing the very conditions that continue to obstruct progress on the agreement’s transition to its second phase.

With nearly the entire population of Gaza living in sub-standard tents and surviving on the meager rations permitted through Israeli checkpoints, it is the highest form of immorality to demand political concessions in exchange for basic sustenance.

Under the framework, the official transition to this second phase—which President Donald Trump and the Board of Peace declared to have begun in January 2026—demands sweeping, one-sided Palestinian concessions, most notably the total disarmament of armed factions.

This demand is a recipe for the failure of the entire project, especially given that Israel has completely failed to implement the most basic requirements of the agreement’s first phase. It has refused to halt its routine military incursions, has failed to withdraw its forces to the originally mandated “Yellow Line” demarcation, and continues to deny entry permits to the technocratic committee slated to assume civil governance of the Strip.

Mladenov’s insistence on Palestinian disarmament before the agreement can advance—without a single guarantee of Israeli compliance—conveniently flips the narrative. It cynically reframes systematic starvation and the blockade of medical and construction supplies as a Palestinian failure to honor commitments.

In reality, Mladenov holds no real cards; he is merely a cog in a larger machinery controlled by Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister has made it explicitly clear that he has no intention of following any peace road map, planning instead for the permanent incremental takeover of Gaza.

Speaking at a conference in an occupied West Bank settlement on May 28, Netanyahu explained his strategy with total clarity, abandoning all diplomatic doublespeak: “We are currently squeezing Hamas; we now control 60% of the territory of the strip—you know this. We were at 50, we moved to 60. My directive is to move to...” he said, pausing as an audience member shouted “100!”

Netanyahu smiled and responded: “Let’s go step by step. First of all, 70. Let’s start with that. We’re pressing them from all sides, we’ll deal with the remnants.”

This is the actual blueprint of the Israeli government, declared openly to domestic audiences. The admission was so brazen that even US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed frustration at Netanyahu’s candor. Testifying before Congress on June 2, Rubio remarked, “We have a plan—it doesn’t call for that,” referring to further Israeli territorial expansion.

Yet, Rubio quickly reverted to Washington’s standard line: “And at the end of the day, we understand that what we want, and I think what the Israelis would ultimately want, is a Gaza that is governed by a non-Hamas entity.”

While the immediate priority for Palestinians is not governance but lifesaving food, clean water, medicine, and basic survival, Netanyahu and Rubio view the entire crisis through a political lens. The US-Israeli plan is predicated on achieving, through diplomatic strangulation and engineered famine, what they failed to fully achieve through military might.

A rare, decisive answer came from United Nations spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, who summed up the UN position plainly: “One hundred percent of Gaza should be for the Palestinian people.” The problem, however, is that the UN’s rhetoric is backed by no real enforcement mechanisms.

The international community has walked directly into a trap, outsourcing the future of the Gaza Strip to the Trump administration and its Board of Peace. Even the designated technocratic committee has been rendered entirely irrelevant, excluded from a decision-making process left solely to diplomats beholden to the White House.

The situation on the ground remains catastrophic. Since the fragile, heavily compromised ceasefire took effect on October 10, regular Israeli violations and airstrikes have killed nearly 1,000 Palestinians and wounded thousands more—the vast majority women and children. When added to the horrific toll of the initial two years of war, the official number of Palestinians killed has surpassed 73,000, with over 173,000 injured.

Furthermore, credible epidemiological studies and medical journals have concluded that the true death toll is vastly higher.

With nearly the entire population of Gaza living in sub-standard tents and surviving on the meager rations permitted through Israeli checkpoints, it is the highest form of immorality to demand political concessions in exchange for basic sustenance.

Netanyahu’s “step-by-step” annexation does not hinge on what Palestinian factions decide to do; his expansionist timeline is shaped independently of Palestinian compliance.

Arab, Muslim, and allied nations must fundamentally shift their diplomatic strategy. They must firmly insist on completely delinking humanitarian aid from the future governance or demilitarization of the Gaza Strip.

Starvation cannot be tolerated as political leverage for war criminals. Netanyahu is emboldened by a history of international impunity, speaking openly of expanding his military footprint regardless of the consequences of such action.

The international community must remind Israel’s government that the survival of millions of Palestinians cannot be held hostage to the political ambitions of an extremist coalition.



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


Ramzy Baroud
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of the Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books including: "These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons" (2019), "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (2010) and "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (2006). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
Full Bio >
Israeli and Palestinian groups urge action on two-state solution in Paris

Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups will meet in Paris on Friday to urge the international community not to abandon a two-state solution, as France seeks to keep the issue on the agenda amid the ongoing war in the Middle East.



Issued on: 12/06/2026 - RFI

The first conference to push for a two-state solution was held on 13 June 2025.
 AFP - THIBAUD MORITZ

Foreign ministers and senior officials from dozens of countries are expected to attend the meeting, which comes one year after the United Nations-backed New York Declaration set out a roadmap towards Palestinian statehood and encouraged a number of countries, including France, the United Kingdom and Canada, to recognise a Palestinian state – which they went on to do in September last year.

France says the gathering is intended to maintain momentum behind a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at a time when efforts to implement a ceasefire in Gaza have stalled.

The conference is due to end with an eight-point "Call for Action" urging a permanent ceasefire, a halt to settlements, the reconstruction of Gaza, governance reforms and stronger international backing for civil society.

Peace efforts

The document is set to be presented to G7 leaders when they meet in the French Alps from Monday.

"Given the current situation in the region, marked by seemingly endless conflicts, too many civilian casualties and a cycle of violence, and in light of the stalled implementation of the Gaza ceasefire ... we believe this conference is now more essential and urgent than ever," France's Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Thursday.

The action plan says Gaza has been devastated and that continued illegal Israeli settlement expansion is undermining prospects for a future Palestinian state.

It warns that Israelis and Palestinians remain "trapped in fear, insecurity, and trauma" and that "the window for a solution remains open, but it is narrowing".

The conference comes amid increasing violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank and growing criticism in several Western countries of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government over settlement expansion.

Criticism by activists

France, the UK, Canada, and Norway announced coordinated sanctions on Tuesday against Israeli networks involved in financing, enabling and carrying out violence in the occupied West Bank.

Israel and the United States have declined to attend the conference.

"The ambassador was invited but will not attend the conference, as it has nothing to do with promoting peace," the Israeli embassy said in a statement. "France cannot act as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinians. Regarding the two-state solution, the ambassador recalls that the Palestinians have rejected proposals to establish a Palestinian state on five occasions."

The conference has also drawn criticism from some Israeli and Palestinian peace activists.

"We have always talked among ourselves, that has never been a problem. Dialogue is an integral part of resistance to colonial situations. And personal relationships are the easiest thing," Yaël Lerer, a French-Israeli activist told RFI.

Lerer said there was no need to create another forum for dialogue between activists.

"The urgent question now is how to stop Israel, how to stop its genocidal policy and how to respect international law... Which we are not doing", she said.

"We talk about solutions, we talk about peace, we talk about dialogue but people are being killed every day... [This conference] does not interest me. It's there so that we do not talk about what we need to talk about. Inaction is complicity."

Lerer and other activists are calling for sanctions against Israel, including the suspension of the free trade agreement between Israel and the European Union.
UK Palestine Action Activists Hit With ‘Completely Disproportionate’ Terrorism Sentences for Israeli Weapons Sabotage

Amnesty UK said the defendants “were sentenced as terrorists because prosecutors want to make an example of them.”



Protesters are detained by police outside Woolwich Crown Court, London, on June 12, 2026 during a hearing where Palestine Action activists are due to be sentenced over a break-in at the UK base of an Israel-based defense firm, Elbit Systems, site near Bristol on August 6m 2024.
(Photo by Yui Mok/PA Images via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Jun 12, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

In a decision that Amnesty International described as “completely disproportionate,” four demonstrators with the outlawed group Palestine Action were sentenced as terrorists in the UK on Friday after being convicted for causing damage at an Israeli weapons factory in 2024 to protest the genocide in Gaza.

Supporters of the so-called “Filton 4” were filmed crying and embracing outside Woolwich Crown Court in London as the judge, Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson, handed down sentences ranging from four years and eight months to seven years and eight months to the four young defendants

Charlotte Head, 30; Leona Kamio, 30; and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were convicted of criminal damage last month after a break-in at a factory in Bristol owned by the Israeli company Elbit Systems, where they smashed up over a dozen drones and other military equipment, causing around £1.2 million, or $1.6 million, of damage.

A fourth defendant, 23-year-old Samuel Corner, was also convicted for the damage, as well as grievous bodily harm without intent for striking a policewoman on the scene with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine.



In what has been described as a legal first for Britain, Johnson sentenced the four defendants as terrorists, although three had only been convicted of property damage. He did so under the Sentencing Act of 2020, which allows nonterrorism crimes to be treated as terrorism if they meet certain criteria.

Elbit’s drones have been documented in use during attacks on civilians, including the April 2024 strike on a World Central Kitchen convoy that killed seven aid workers.

Last month, 22-year-old Zoe Rogers, another activist who took part in the Elbit raid but was acquitted, said she believed that because of their sabotage of the drones, “innocent lives were saved” in Gaza.

However, Johnson did not allow the defendants to explain the reason for their actions as part of the trial, nor were jurors informed that the defendants could later receive sentences for terrorism.

Because the protesters had caused “serious damage to property” for the purpose of “advancing a political or ideological cause,” Johnson determined that the protesters could be sentenced as terrorists using the broad definition from the Terrorism Act 2000.

The terrorism designation means that defendants will have to serve a minimum of two-thirds of their sentences in prison and will be required to register as terrorists with the police for the next 15 years.

Attorneys for the defendants said they were not informed that their clients were at risk of being sentenced for terrorism and accused the prosecution of submitting key evidence, including a report on the cost of damage to the factory, “at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour,” giving them little time to form a rebuttal.

The defendants’ attorneys described the precedent that someone could be sentenced for terrorism after being convicted of a nonviolent offense as unprecedented and dangerous to speech.

“It’s wrong for someone to be sentenced for a more serious offense of which they have not been convicted,” said Corner’s attorney, Tom Wainwright, who noted that similar measures could have been used to sentence earlier protest movements, like the suffragettes or other anti-war demonstrators who sabotaged military equipment, for terrorism simply because their actions had a political motivation.

Head’s attorney, Rajiv Menon, described the attempt to sentence his client as unprecedented, and warned that it was “an invitation to chilling, creeping authoritarianism that undermines the very fabric of our society.”

After their conviction, Wainwright hailed the protesters as people of conscience: “[The drones] may have been involved in taking the lives of men, women, and children in Gaza. That is why they acted. That’s something that—in a sane world—would be commended.”

In a post to social media following news of the conviction, Amnesty UK condemned the use of terrorism powers in this case.

“It is completely disproportionate to punish protesters for criminal damage as if they were terrorists, a sentence which stays with you for life,” the human rights group said.



The sentencing comes amid a broader crackdown in the UK against pro-Palestine speech and protest that has ramped up even under a Labour government, which has sought to label even peaceful demonstrations as terrorism.

Following another case in which Palestine Action protesters vandalized military equipment—this time on a UK Royal Air Force base—the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer in 2025 used the same terrorism law cited by Johnson to label the group as proscribed, effectively making it illegal to belong to it or publicly support it.

Police have arrested numerous peaceful protesters for no other crime than holding signs that read: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Amnesty said in May that more than 3,300 people had been arrested across the UK since the proscription took effect and that more than 1,200 protesters had been charged with terrorism-related offenses.

Eight other Palestine Action activists, including four others who have been accused of involvement with the Elbit break-in, went on a lengthy hunger strike this past winter to protest their confinement in prison for more than a year without trial, during which time they alleged that they were denied needed medical care and had their communication with the outside world censored.

Amnesty said the Filton 4 “were sentenced as terrorists because prosecutors want to make an example of them.”

On Friday, as hundreds rallied outside the court against the terrorism sentence, more than 100 peaceful protesters were also arrested for allegedly supporting Palestine Action.

Video of one of the arrests, published by Channel 4 News, shows police officers lifting an elderly woman by her arms and legs and dragging her away from a larger group of people holding signs.

“You’re under arrest under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act,” one officer is heard saying.
How Western Media Normalizes Israel’s Ethnic Cleansing in Lebanon

Like in Gaza, where genocide proceeds apace in spite of a declared ceasefire, the media tend to report “ceasefires” in Lebanon without caring to highlight the fact that it’s not a ceasefire when Israel is still pummeling the country and massacring people.



A child suffering serious injuries is brought to hospital after an Israeli airstrike on a building on April 08, 2026 in Nabatieh, Lebanon.
(Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

Belen Fernandez
Jun 12, 2026
FAIR

In October 2024, one year into Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip and attendant assault on Lebanon, the Israeli army did a thing. It invited journalists from major Western corporate media outlets on an incursion into Lebanon’s ravaged south, accompanied by Israeli military personnel who would interpret the wreckage in Israel’s favor—not that the Western media have ever required much assistance in this regard.

Reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, Fox News and a handful of other special guests signed up for the cross-border sortie. It was, as Habib Battah and Christina Cavalcanti note in an investigation for the Public Source (8/27/25), an “awkward hybrid between a traditional embed and the kind of all-expense-paid publicity trip that journalists refer to as junkets, freebies and dog-and-pony shows.”

Never mind that it is entirely illegal for journalists or anyone else to enter Lebanon from Israel—what’s one more illegal invasion from a country that has been invading Lebanon pretty much since its founding? As Battah and Cavalcanti emphasize, these media professionals were also embedding themselves “within a national project of extraordinary transnational violence,” hosted by an “extrajudicial occupying military power—a critical point that all of them would fail to mention in their coverage.”

The Israelis certainly hit the jackpot with the coverage, as reporters excitedly discovered boots and helmets allegedly belonging to Hezbollah—clear proof that the group had been plotting a nefarious attack on Israel. New York Times Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner, an old pro at conducting preemptive journalistic strikes on Lebanon, did not disappoint with her dispatch (10/13/24), “Just Over the Border From Israel, a Hezbollah Cache of Explosives and Mines.”

And in report after embedded report, Israel’s chosen journalists faithfully transmitted the tiresome and counter-logical notion that Hezbollah was somehow the aggressor in the arrangement—as opposed to the army that was busily slaughtering thousands of people in Lebanon while implementing a scorched-earth strategy.
‘Urgent evacuation warnings’While the October 2024 embed was one of the more preposterous embodiments of Western corporate media’s special relationship with Israel, outlets continue to do a fine job of sanitizing Israeli brutality even when their reporters are not physically viewing the region from inside an Israeli armored vehicle. Since March of this year, Israel has killed at least 3,613 people in Lebanon and displaced 1.2 million, obliterating entire villages and otherwise expanding the ecocidal policy honed in the Gaza Strip.

There has been no remotely comparable destruction on the Israeli side, and a recent Reuters article (5/31/26) that had attempted to suggest some symmetry now comes with the preface: “This May 31 story has been corrected to remove a reference to tens of thousands of Israelis being displaced by Hezbollah fire, in paragraph 3.”

Like in Gaza, where genocide proceeds apace in spite of a declared ceasefire (FAIR.org, 10/21/25), the media tend to report “ceasefires” in Lebanon without caring to highlight the fact that it’s not a ceasefire when Israel is still pummeling the country and massacring people, all the while setting the stage for a massive land grab with its creeping so-called “evacuation orders.” These “evacuations” have been focused on the Shiite demographic, with Israel warning Christian and Druze communities not to allow Shiite neighbors to take refuge in their towns (New York Times, 4/1/26).

Lebanese journalist Habib Battah, co-author of the aforementioned Public Source investigation, suggested to me that such orders might be more accurately termed “ethnic cleansing directives.” But that, of course, would be way too much for corporate media outlets to handle—and so it is that we learn about Israel’s “urgent evacuation warnings” and “large-scale evacuation orders,” as though it’s some sort of public service announcement, fire drill or other fundamentally legitimate Israeli undertaking, rather than entirely illegal in addition to downright psychopathic. From a legal and moral perspective, after all, you can’t just go around ordering people in other countries out of their homes, oftentimes only to bomb them when they comply.

Then there’s the matter of the “Yellow Line” or “security zone”—more terminology borrowed from Gaza (FAIR.org, 5/19/26)—which denotes the portion of south Lebanon that Israel is currently illegally occupying. But Israel has never been very good at staying within the lines, and its latest “evacuation orders” spanned no less than one-fifth of the entire country, far beyond its own unilaterally appointed Yellow Line.

As Battah remarked to me, the media’s acceptance and deployment of such arbitrary vocabulary creates “artificial structures” and a sense of orderliness, when in reality “there’s no yellow lines, there’s no yellow, there’s no colors—these are just illegal invasions.” And because media are committed to sanitizing Israel’s behavior rather than questioning it, “colonization becomes normalized.”
‘A warning to residents’

The eagerness of journalists to do Israel’s bidding is all the more confounding given that Israel is currently the No. 1 killer of journalists in the world. A recent Associated Press article (5/29/26), for example, reduced the pulverization of Lebanon to simply “ongoing fighting in southern Lebanon between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters.”

A June 4 Reuters writeup blamed Hezbollah for having “rejected” the latest US-mediated “ceasefire” plan—which, mind you, would basically have given Israel the green light to seize south Lebanon outright. Reuters refrained from referencing the thousands of Lebanese casualties since March, but did allow Israel the usual space to defend its depredations: “The Israeli military, in a warning to residents of the south, said it was continuing to target Hezbollah facilities.”

This is not to say that corporate media do not report on the destruction, displacement and killing in Lebanon; they do—and sometimes even sympathetically. But the refusal to paint a consistent and properly contextualized picture of what is actually going on in the country means that they mostly just end up legitimizing Israel’s war crimes.

Imagine for a moment that Hezbollah had just killed thousands of Israelis in three months and occupied northern Israel. In doing so, it laid waste to 5,000-year-old cities, and bombed the fuck out of everything from homes to ambulances to World Heritage sites to university students to environmental activists who protect sea turtles. Suffice it to say we’d be hearing a lot more about the utter barbarity of it all—and that Hezbollah wouldn’t be allowed to claim ad nauseam that it was targeting “military facilities.”

Almost three years into a genocide that has officially killed nearly 73,000 Palestinians and given Israel every opportunity to blind the world with its true colors, it is no short of an abomination that Israeli officials are still permitted to insist—with little to no media pushback—that they only target “terrorists” and “terrorist infrastructure.” If Israeli officials were to claim that two plus two equals eight, or that Elvis Presley was living in a cave in Madagascar, would the corporate media also report such information with a straight face?

By taking Israel’s word for it, journalists wind up essentially validating mass killing and occupation—as in the corrected May 31 Reuters piece that straight up makes the case for Israel’s seizure of a 900-year-old castle that lies nowhere near the imaginary colored line:
The advance into Beaufort Castle has granted Israeli troops a vantage point over much of southern Lebanon and northern Israel, from which attacks have been launched ⁠towards Israeli residential areas.

‘Iranian proxy on its borders’

Of course, willful media decontextualization and omission of relevant history facilitates the conversion of Israeli propaganda into “news.” One handy trick is to always, always, always remind audiences that Hezbollah is a “powerful Shia group supported by Iran,” as the BBC (5/28/26) puts it.

On March 13, CNN ran an analysis datelined Tel Aviv that bore the headline: “The War That Never Ended: Israel Seizes Moment to Finish Fight Against Hezbollah, Iran’s Proxy in Lebanon.” The analyst proceeded to justify Israel’s belief that “it needs to establish a strong military defense to protect civilians from the Iranian proxy on its borders.”

But while invoking Hezbollah’s support by Iran is practically a requirement for Western media reports, it is never deemed necessary to qualify Israel’s own orientation in any way—like, I dunno, “The war that never ended: Genocidal psychostate backed to the hilt by global superpower seizes moment to finish fight against Hezbollah.”

As for why this fight started in the first place, the media can somehow never summon the energy to explain that Hezbollah owes its very existence to Israel’s apocalyptic 1982 invasion of Lebanon that killed tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians, prompting the group’s formation. Indeed, Israel’s lengthy history of invading Lebanon—not to mention its 22-year occupation of the south of the country, which ended in its ignominious eviction by the Hezbollah-led Lebanese resistance—would seem to be pretty crucial context in terms of understanding the current war. But those journalists who do bother to provide a bit of background do so in as ambiguous and cursory a fashion as possible, as in the New York Times’ explanation (6/3/26) that “Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite militia group, has been in conflict with Israel, on and off, for decades.”

A May 13 NBC News intervention headlined “Amid Ceasefire, Israeli Forces Ramp Up Destruction of Homes in Southern Lebanon” offers a roundabout summary of Hezbollah’s origins: “The group, formed in the early 1980s as a civil war consumed Lebanon, was created with support from Iran and sought to expel Israeli forces from Lebanese territory.” The piece went on to discuss some details of the present destruction in south Lebanon, including footage from a video posted to X on April 24 in which
two excavators can be seen destroying solar panels in the Christian border town of Debel, where a photo last month showed a soldier taking what appeared to be an axe to a statue of Jesus.


In a statement to NBC News that can be safely filed under the can’t-make-this-shit-up category, the Israeli army “said…that the damage to the solar panels was not in line with its values, and that disciplinary measures had been taken.” Here’s praying that corporate journalists might someday have the balls to take Israel to task on more existential matters.



© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)

Belen Fernandez
Belén Fernández is the author of The Darién Gap: A Reporter’s Journey through the Deadly Crossroads of the Americas and Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Center, among other titles. She is an opinion columnist at Al Jazeera.
Full Bio >
Doug Burgum Puts Private Profits Over Public Lands and Tribal Rights

Last month the Interior Department approved new grazing rules that revoke tribal rights to graze bison on federal land in favor of cattle, all to benefit wealthy ranchers. 
SAME ASSHOLES WHO BLAME WOLVES FOR CATTLE DEATHS



Bison graze on prairie land.
(Photo by BLM)


Jim Goodman
Jun 12, 2026
Common Dreams


When the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held confirmation hearings for current Department of Interior head Doug Burgum, he made it quite clear that he viewed public lands, lands belonging to the American public, as an asset on “America’s balance sheet.” His implication was pretty clear: These public lands should be used to turn a profit.

Public lands belong to all Americans and were set aside for their protection, not for profit. But, no surprise, Burgum fully supports exploitative industries like oil, gas, and mining on public lands, so who’s balance sheet will benefit? At an energy conference in Houston last year he noted, “If we’re going to drill, baby, drill, then we’ve got to be asked to also mine, baby, mine.”

So much for conservation and environmental protection of our public lands! But, like most members of the current administration, he acts like using your office to extract profit wherever possible is acceptable and “smart”—protecting the public trust takes a back seat. In 2024, President Donald Trump asked a gathering of oil and gas executives at his Florida estate hosted by Burgum to raise $1 billion for his campaign, for which in return he would roll back environmental protections requested by the oil industry. In his thinking, that’s smart, a win-win, personal profit for the president and windfall profits for energy companies.

But Burugm also knows there is profit to be made above ground on the public lands that cover large stretches of the Great Plains. Last month the Interior Department approved new grazing rules that revoke tribal rights to graze bison on federal land in favor of cattle, i.e. “production-oriented livestock.”

Aside from money made by extractive industries, administration officials, and ranchers—all at the expense of taxpayers and the environment—there are too few who question why the ongoing racism of the current administration is allowed to continue.

In the early 1800s, upward of 50 million bison roamed the Great Plains; by 1900, fewer than 1,000 were left. An organized campaign of commercial hunting, the government’s desire to subjugate the Native tribes by exterminating their food supply, and the perceived need to close the range for private cattle grazing nearly exterminated the American bison.

Déjà vu.

Tribal efforts to expand the herd, in cooperation with former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland during the Biden administration, prioritized efforts to manage the herd for traditional purposes of food, cultural heritage, and land conservation—and public land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was part of that partnership.

While fees charged for cattle grazing on BLM land are claimed to benefit the US Treasury, these fees do not help Secretary Burgum’s “balance sheet” either. Permitted grazing on BLM land actually costs taxpayers money, while it benefits a small number of mostly rich landowners. True, there are ranchers who use the privilege of grazing public lands responsibly, yet there are others who abuse the privilege, while the administration turns a blind eye and continues to roll back environmental enforcement. Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy continued to illegally graze BLM land in Nevada for years after piling up fees and fines of over $1 million.

Aside from money made by extractive industries, administration officials, and ranchers—all at the expense of taxpayers and the environment—there are too few who question why the ongoing racism of the current administration is allowed to continue. While the outright slaughter of Native tribes as seen in the 1800s is no longer occurring, the government is clearly denying the tribes the right to celebrate their culture, their heritage, and their right to a decent life on land that was once theirs, land where millions of bison grazed, animals that evolved with the native prairie and in effect managed it and put it to its highest use. Land that now, in addition to production-oriented livestock, is covered by millions of acres of corn and soy.

It is unlikely that cattle, corn, and soy will ever be replaced by bison herds on the Great Plains, because as the Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT), which represents more than 50 tribes managing 25,000 bison on land that accounts for about 95% of Indian Country noted, the new Interior Department rules are designed to protect cows and were published without prior consultation with tribes.

It is not nostalgia that bison should graze public lands, especially those adjacent to tribal reservations. Bison are far better environmental stewards than cattle and, for that matter, probably people as well. It is also, perhaps, a pipe dream that this administration would recognize the inherent cultural rights of Native Americans, or any minority for that matter. To them, the extraction of profit for themselves and their corporate cronies is all that matters. But this administration will someday end, and perhaps the next will be more enlightened and respectful of minority rights and common sense.


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


Jim Goodman
Jim Goodman is a retired third-generation dairy farmer from Wonewoc, Wisconsin and a member of Family Farm Defenders.
Full Bio >
Yes, Trump Did Promise No New Wars

His failing war in Iran and his campaign pledge not to start any wars should be held against Republicans in the House and Senate. They’re partly responsible.



Protestors stand on an image depicting US President Donald Trump during a gathering to protest against the US and Israel attack of Iran and the killing of the Supreme leader in front of the US Embassy in Ankara on March 1, 2026.
(Photo by Adem Altan / AFP via Getty Images)

Robert Reich
Jun 13, 2026
Inequality Media


Sometimes I provide you with information that I hope you’ll find helpful in making arguments with others. I don’t expect that what I share with you will change the minds of committed Trumpers, but the facts and the evidence may have some sway with Republicans and independents who are wavering about whom to support in the midterms.

One of the main reasons President Donald Trump was elected was his pledge to keep the United States out of wars, especially the kind of “endless” wars America has fought in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Obviously, he broke that pledge. We’re now well into the fourth month of a war he said would be four or five weeks at most.

In addition, the war he initiated in Iran was a war of choice—Iran did not attack the United States, and most specialists in foreign policy say Iran was not close to devising a nuclear weapon at that time. (It’s likely to be closer now, or at least more committed to making one.)

In reality, of course, Trump has been one of the most bellicose presidents in modern American history.

Yet in a lengthy interview with Kristen Welker, the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” which aired Sunday, Trump was once again trying to rewrite his own history, He claimed:
I didn’t guarantee no war. So when you say I promised, I didn’t promise anything. I don’t like these endless wars. This is not an endless war. We’ve been doing this for three months.

In fact, Trump repeatedly and unequivocally promised during the 2024 election campaign that the US would not have any wars during his second presidency.

Herewith, some examples.

In a June 2024 social media post, Trump described the election as “a choice between STRENGTH or WEAKNESS, COMPETENCE or INCOMPETENCE, peace and prosperity or war and no war.”

In one of the highest-profile speeches of his campaign—his July 2024 address to the Republican National Convention—he said: “With our victory in November, the years of war, weakness, and chaos will be over. I don’t have wars.”

He made the promise again and even more directly during an August 2024 rally in the swing state of Pennsylvania, saying, “Under Trump, we will have no more wars, no more disruptions, and we will have prosperity and peace for all.”

Trump reprised the same pledge in an August 2024 interview with Adin Ross, an online personality. After saying there were no wars during his first administration, he promised, “And we won’t have wars again.”

At another rally that month in the hotly contested state of North Carolina, Trump approvingly cited Viktor Orbán, then the prime minister of Hungary, as supposedly having said, “Make sure that Trump gets reelected president, and you’re not going to have any more wars.” Trump reiterated moments later: “No more wars. No more disruptions. We will have prosperity, and we will have peace.”

Trump told versions of the Orbán story at numerous other events. For example, in the swing state of Wisconsin in October 2024, he said, “Viktor Orbán said: ‘If Trump comes back, you won’t have any wars. You won’t have any wars.’ And he’s about as tough as they get, and he said it loud and clear and he said why. But you won’t have any wars.”

Finally, in his victory address in November 2024, Trump made a clear promise that he would not start a war—even when he no longer had to persuade voters to elect him. He said in that high-profile speech: “Four years, we had no wars, except we defeated ISIS… They said, ‘He will start a war.’ I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.”

In reality, of course, Trump has been one of the most bellicose presidents in modern American history.

His failing war in Iran and his campaign pledge not to start any wars should be held against Republicans in the House and Senate. They’re partly responsible. They have repeatedly refused to stop his wars. They have repeatedly enabled his aggression.


© 2025 Robert Reich

Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
Full Bio >
Trump Super PAC to Hold $1 Million-Per-Plate Fundraiser as Hunger Surges
WHAT FOR?!


The fundraiser comes as a recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed food insecurity in the US has reached its highest levels since the Covid-19 pandemic.


Brad Reed
Jun 12, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A super political action committee created to support Donald Trump is preparing to hold a big-money fundraiser at the president’s Virginia golf course that will charge attendees $1 million each.

As reported by NBC News, MAGA, Inc. will host the $1 million-per-plate event at the Trump National Golf Club Washington DC on the day before the president is set to host Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events at the White House as part of his 80th birthday celebration.




UN Agency Warns Trump’s Illegal Iran War Pushing Millions Into Hunger



Report Finds ‘Remarkable Increase in Food Insecurity’ Across US Under Trump

“The fundraiser is at least the sixth such $1 million-per-person event held by Trump-aligned groups for the midterm elections,” reported NBC News. “Republicans at nearly all levels hold a significant midterm cash advantage over Democrats, who expect to be outpaced financially in many key House and Senate races.”

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, linked the ritzy fundraiser to Trump’s economic policies that have primarily benefited the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the working class.

“The comingling of 250th anniversary events, Trump’s UFC fight, and a $1 million per-plate fundraiser on Trump’s own birthday,” Gilbert said, “gives corporate interests and wealthy donors not just an ultimate fight—but the ultimate opportunity to pay tribute to the president. Rather than celebrate our nation’s anniversary in the bipartisan manner directed by Congress, the Trump administration has directed public money and public property to politicized events.”

“Major corporations, such as Chevron, Exxon, MasterCard, and many more,” Gilbert added, “should be ashamed to be associated with this corrupt spectacle.”

The fundraiser comes as a recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed food insecurity in the US has reached its highest levels since the Covid-19 pandemic.

The New York Fed researchers said their study found “a remarkable increase in food insecurity, particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children,” as well as “a contemporaneous increase in pessimism among the same groups, along with a sharp decline in job-finding expectations.”

The researchers noted that “while many households are doing fine and economic activity overall has been expanding at a solid pace,” there are large numbers of people “facing high levels of economic insecurity and financial strain,” which has resulted in plunging overall consumer sentiment.

Most Russians are not closely following the war in Ukraine - Levada

Most Russians are not closely following the war in Ukraine - Levada
Two out of three Russians have lost interest in the Ukraine war and pay it little attention. / bne IntelliNews
By Ben Aris in Berlin June 11, 2026

Most Russians are no longer paying close attention to the war in Ukraine, according to the latest survey from the independent Levada Center, highlighting a gradual decline in public engagement with a conflict that has dominated Russian political life for more than four years.

The poll, conducted in June, found two thirds (66%) of Russians say they only casually or not particularly closely up from a third (35%) in March. Only 13% of respondents said they follow developments around Ukraine “very closely”, down from 29% in March 2022, shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion. A further 28% said they follow events “fairly closely”, meaning that a combined 41% are actively monitoring the conflict, compared with 64% at the start of the war.

By contrast, 38% of respondents said they pay attention to the war “without particular attention”, while 28% said they do not follow it closely. Just 1% said they had not heard about the conflict or found it difficult to answer.

The findings suggest that the war has increasingly become part of the background of daily life for many Russians, despite continuing military operations and a growing number of attacks on Russian soil by long-range Ukrainian drones.

The decline in attention has been gradual rather than abrupt. Throughout 2022 and 2023, roughly half of respondents said they followed events in Ukraine either very or fairly closely. That share has steadily fallen during 2024 and 2025.

The results come as Russian authorities continue to present the conflict as a central national priority. State television devotes extensive coverage to military developments, while government officials regularly frame the war as a defining struggle against Nato.

Levada, one of Russia’s best-known polling organisations, has continued to track public attitudes towards the conflict since the invasion began. The organisation is designated a “foreign agent” by the Russian authorities, a label it rejects.