Friday, September 25, 2026

 

Kazakh billionaire Timur Turlov brings his chequebook to the battle for world chess

Kazakh billionaire Timur Turlov brings his chequebook to the battle for world chess
Kazakh billionaire is the front runner to take over as president of FIDE, the world chess federation, in a controversial and hard fought election. / bne IntelliNewsFacebook
By Leon Aris in Samarkand September 25, 2026

Three businessmen are battling to become the new president of the global chess federation, and Kazakh billionaire Timur Turlov is campaigning with his personal chequebook open. In Samarkand, the annual Chess Olympiad has doubled as backdrop to the end of the campaign trail.

With days to go before FIDE's (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) delegates vote for a new president, the candidates have been working the halls of the biggest Olympiad ever staged. Some 400 teams - 208 in the Open section and 192 in the Women's - have come to Samarkand, beating the record of 380 set in Budapest in 2024, and nearly 2,000 players, around 240 of them grandmasters, are competing in the first Olympiad ever held in Central Asia. Turlov has made himself unusually easy for the press to reach, squeezing interviews in between a lunch with delegates, commission meetings and a string of one-on-ones. "He doesn't shy away from interviews," said his media adviser, Milan Denic, adding that this is why Turlov likes to call himself his own campaign manager.

"We're feeling, frankly, ourselves extremely strong now in terms of position," he told journalists in Samarkand, the legendary city in the middle of the ancient Silk Road.

For the first time in FIDE's history, according to former president Arkady Dvorkovich, all three candidates come from business rather than from the chess world or politics. With three wealthy businessmen in the field, finances are playing a bigger role than in past FIDE races. And Turlov brings the largest business of the three front runners: he is chief executive of Nasdaq-listed brokerage Freedom Holding Corp and president of the Kazakhstan Chess Federation. His wealth is also where his rivals aim their fire, arguing that his bid blurs the line between a corporation and a sporting body.

The backstop

One of the central pillars of Turlov's plans for FIDE is a financial guarantee. He told IntelliNews he has committed at least $8.5mn to FIDE development funds over a four-year term and expects the final sum to pass $10mn.

The money breaks down into roughly $7mn of core development money plus a further $1.5mn earmarked for media. The core fund is meant to pay for open tournaments, coaching and arbiter training, and to subsidise travel for young talent from federations with less resources. Turlov called $8.5mn a floor rather than a ceiling. "I think it will be more than $10mn for sure," he said.

Asked whose money it would be, his own or Freedom's, he answered: "I think it's both. My personal guarantee is there at the end of the day, but I'm almost sure Freedom will also join me," he told IntelliNews in an exclusive interview, adding that he would, "persuade my board".

The weakness of a personal guarantee is that it is personal. When asked whether the money would walk out the door with him if he lost a re-election bid in 2030, Turlov conceded that "nobody knows what will happen in the next few years". He said he expected to remain wealthy enough to keep giving. He also said he would be happy to stay involved and help a new team run FIDE, as he had with Dvorkovich's administration, the outgoing FIDE president.

Freedom Holding has been actively sponsoring chess events long before Turlov’s bid for the presidency, such as organising a world blitz chess tournament on Wall Street in New York in December 2024 as well as the first chess open in Kazakhstan last year.

Making rock stars

The most concrete part of his programme is $1.5mn a year, for at least four years, to build media operations at member federations. It would fund training and dedicated staff, which Turlov says many smaller federations cannot afford. FIDE's own central media team would get a separate and bigger budget.

His logic is commercial. He described chess as a club of smart, wealthy and powerful people, and said governments and corporations will pay to be associated with it. He pointed to FIDE's recent sponsorship deal with Salesforce, which he called the largest single sponsorship contract in the organisation's history. The missing piece, he argued, is visibility.

"If we make our chess players real rock stars, if we make our events attractive and popular for the media, we will definitely achieve much better financial sustainability and independence for each member federation," he said.

The approach has already worked at home, where the Kazakhstan Chess Federation has become one of the country's most popular sports bodies.

Where Freedom ends

His critics' sharpest question is how to separate FIDE from Freedom. The group already has a hand in digital chess: its customers can earn mobile data by solving chess puzzles, and it owns the chess software company ChessBase. Meanwhile, Turlov wants FIDE to take a bigger role in regulating online play. That would leave a Freedom-owned platform operating under rules set by a body its chief executive runs.

The overlap sits exactly where FIDE's reformers want change. Dvorkovich told IntelliNews in an interview in Samarkand that digital transformation is one of the two things FIDE most needs.

"Most of our systems are still based on the previous generation of digital technology, if not an even older one, and that hurts," he said. "We are not using all the potential we have with such a massive base of players and chess lovers.”

Asked whether he would publish every contract between FIDE and Freedom and step back from those decisions, Turlov said he would recuse himself from any deal involving ChessBase and "make things as transparent as possible". He stopped short of committing to publish the contracts but said he did not expect there to be many.

Any such deal would also be vetted from both sides. On Freedom's side, it would count as a related-party transaction at a listed company, so it would have to be approved by an audit committee made up entirely of independent members. "The same would happen on the FIDE side," he said.

On the wider question of wearing both hats, as FIDE president and as Freedom's chief executive, Turlov did not see much of a problem. He pointed to Freedom's existing sponsorship of sport at home.

"I've never seen much conflict of interest between Freedom and a chess federation, or other non-profit activities, such as football in Kazakhstan," he said, adding that he would follow best practice on related-party deals.

He described Freedom as "a financial ecosystem" with no major potential interests in chess. Asked whether keeping the two apart would be hard, he was emphatic: "I'm sure it won't be difficult.”

Dvorkovich's man?

His rivals also cast him as the machine candidate: Dvorkovich's system with a new name on the door. A former Russian first Deputy Prime Minister, some have worried that Dvorkovich is representing the Kremlin’s interests, but he left government service in 2018 and has held no public position since, focusing all his attention on chess since then. Nevertheless, he was added to the EU sanctions list in July, triggering his immediate step down from acting as FIDE’s president, with Viswanathan Anand becoming interim president. The EU sanctioned him on the grounds that his actions supported policies undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity – a characterisation Dvorkovich has disputed.

The former FIDE president doesn’t deny his support of Turlov’s bid and asked whether Turlov would get his vote, Dvorkovich said: "Yes, 100%.”

Dvorkovich said FIDE needs Turlov's commercial and digital skills, while the rest should change "evolutionarily, not revolutionarily". He also argued that Turlov's consumer-facing business suits a sport with a vast amateur following better than his rivals' work selling to other companies. His one caveat was that Turlov must surround himself with arbiters, grandmasters and trainers.

Turlov insists he is his own man. Asked to name one thing he would do completely differently from his predecessor, he pointed to presidential term limits, which were reversed under Dvorkovich.

"Yes, we'll consider reforming term limits in line with best practice in sports organisations," he said. It was a promise to look at the issue rather than a pledge to restore them.

He was firmer about who would be in charge. "I think I'm a strong leader with a strong reputation of my own. Regardless of what anyone wants, I'll build my own team and culture, and take a different approach to managing FIDE," he said.

Asked what that would mean in concrete terms, Turlov said he could not yet say, because he has never worked inside the organisation. "I know very well how I manage businesses, but I don't have a full understanding of how FIDE is managed," he said. "It's very difficult to judge an organisation if you've never been part of it.”

Once in, Turlov said, he would bring FIDE's culture into line with the one he runs at Freedom, and not everyone would survive the change.

"We'll start changing it to make it more like my management culture. Some people will fit; some won't," he said.

He said who stays would depend on how staff respond to his reforms, including the overhaul of the development funds, on relations and trust with member federations, and on how the team handles conflict. "These are natural management issues, not political ones," he said.

"I need an organisation that will allow me to run the programme I'm campaigning on now," he added. "I'm experienced enough to know that some things look different from the inside. I want to keep my commitments and reform FIDE effectively, but first I need to get inside.”

Rocks thrown

The race has been bruising. Well before the delegates gathered in Samarkand, the three camps were trading formal complaints to FIDE, calls for investigations and threats of legal action, World Chess reported in August. The contest was being fought through the federation's disciplinary machinery as much as on the campaign trail.

Turlov has been in the firing line. Buettner, the co-founder of Freestyle Chess who is running with British chess official Malcolm Pein, wrote to the FIDE Council in early August. His letter, headed "Cease and Desist", accused the federation of lending its staff and communication channels to Turlov's campaign and threatened legal consequences if it did not stop, according to the same report.

Dvorkovich, whose administration was the target of that complaint, called the campaign "very competitive" and, "in some aspects, unfortunately, dirty".

"I don't like it. Using all the tools to achieve the goal is not my style, at least," he said.

In public, Turlov has cast the fight as healthy. "We have a real competition in this election, which is also great," he told journalists in Samarkand. He argued that a hard race forces candidates to get to know the delegates and "start to trust each other".

Both men predicted a Turlov win, though Dvorkovich allowed that the race is close. The decision rests with FIDE's General Assembly, which votes on September 26. Each national federation gets one vote, cast by secret ballot.

"I truly believe we are now living in a moment of chess growth," Turlov said. "We see very strong support for our programme, and we're very confident in our ability to win.”

Trump Greenland Deal Panned as ‘Largely a Rebranding of the Status Quo to Claim a Win’

“Trump did an incredible job negotiating for things we already had in Greenland,” said one US critic.



Demonstrators rally outside the US Consulate in Nuuk, Greenland on January 17, 2026 to protest President Donald Trump’s designs on the autonomous Danish territory.
(Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 19, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Danish and international commentators dismissed President Donald Trump’s claim that the deal he announced Friday gives the United States “permanent control” over Greenland’s security as what one journalist called a “repackaging” of long-standing agreements spun as a foreign policy win.

Trump—who has repeatedly threatened to gain control of the autonomous Danish territory, including by military force—said on his Truth Social network: “I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many US concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States!”



“Additionally, from now on, no US adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval,” the president continued. “This is an ‘Infinite Life’ Agreement, there is no end!”

“We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land,” Trump added. “We will be very protective of it! This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed what he called a “historic deal” and “a huge win for the United States and the American people.”

A joint statement released by the office of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who chairs the Naalakkersuisut—Greenland’s governing body—confirmed that “Greenland, Denmark, and the United States are expected to sign an agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic area next week” at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Frederiksen stressed that the agreement “recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom [of Denmark] and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination,” while Nielsen said the pact “is to the benefit of us all.”

While the official text of the deal is not yet public, observers said it is unclear how it differs from the terms of a Cold War-era agreement that already gives the US broad military access to Greenland.

“In terms of rights, they were already allowed quite a lot under the original agreement,” Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, said of the United States in a Saturday interview with The New York Times. “Is there anything here that one could not have achieved without this crisis?”



University of Maryland government and politics professor David Karol said on Bluesky that “this seems to be largely a rebranding of the status quo to claim a win.”

Karol likened the Greenland deal to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that replaced the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement—which Trump called the “worst trade deal ever made”—during the president’s first term. Critics noted that differences between the two pacts were “mostly cosmetic,” as one expert put it.

As the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran dragged on with no end in sight, the US president also pursued a deal to end the conflict that observers noted was broadly similar, and even more favorable to Tehran, to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—better known as the Iran nuclear deal—signed during the Obama administration and unilaterally abandoned by Trump during his first term, despite Iranian compliance.

Sofie Pultz, an international policy research fellow at the progressive UK think tank Institute for Public Policy Research, told LBC on Saturday that “it does sound like the Americans have accepted a repackaging of all deals and agreements, maybe with Denmark footing some of the defense bill. But overall, there’s not a lot of new stuff in here.”



Some Danish commentators were more blunt in their assessment of the deal. Henrik Højgaard Sejerkilde wrote for Jyllands-Posten that “everything suggests that Donald Trump’s agreement on the military presence in Greenland is a flea market find, found in diplomatic recycling.”



Other Danish observers expressed relief that what many viewed as an utterly unnecessary clash between two NATO allies has seemingly been defused.

“One can hope that the crisis of Greenland ends here—but one can never be sure,” Jacob Heinel Jensen of the Danish daily newspaper Berlingske said. “There is reason to be cautiously optimistic that this nonsense of taking over Greenland is now over. But with Trump, you can never be sure.”



Weighing 2028 White House Run, AOC Says Stakes of Race Would Be ‘All or Nothing’

“Life doesn’t wait for you to be ready for things,” the Democratic congresswoman said amid nationwide progressive political momentum. “Sometimes life just makes things ready for you.”



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attends a news conference with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the US Capitol on March 25, 2026.
(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)


Stephen Prager
Sep 22, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez weighs whether to run for president in 2028, there are numerous factors that complicate her decision: her identity as a Latina woman, her role as a leader in a progressive movement on the verge of unprecedented power, and her considerations about raising a family in the future.

Whatever decision the 36-year-old Democratic congresswoman makes, however, it will be “all or nothing,” she said in an interview published Tuesday by The New York Times, in which she spoke candidly about the stakes of what would be a historic and potentially transformative bid for the nation’s highest office.

Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress in 2018 in a victory over the Democratic Party establishment that became a model for the wave of progressive momentum that has defined this year’s cycle.

Amid what she described as the “ascendance” of her movement—marked by the insurgent victories of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed over opponents with establishment support and big money behind them—Ocasio-Cortez is now wondering aloud whether her own moment has arrived.



“There’s an argument that some make that this is a very unique political window and, oftentimes in politics, you do only get one shot,” she said. “And you don’t—and just in life in general—life doesn’t wait for you to be ready for things. Sometimes life just makes things ready for you.”

But she is well aware of the obstacles and sacrifices, both personal and political. Having recently opened up publicly about receiving fertility treatments, she wondered aloud what a potential candidacy might mean for her life, including a possible future pregnancy.

She is also well aware that she would be up against the weight of very recent history. Two of the last three Democratic candidates for president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Kamala Harris, were women, and they both lost to President Donald Trump after campaigns in which sexism—and, in Harris’ case, racism—featured prominently in attacks against them.

“Pretty candidly, I think about my identity,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I’m not naïve to the fact that we are living under a very regressive administration, and I happen to be a woman, and I, you know, happen to be Latina. And I think that there’s a lot of conversation about electability, and I don’t kind of shy away from those realities.”

Those realities are indeed hard to ignore, especially in contrast to her mentor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran two formidable Democratic primary campaigns for president in 2016 and 2020 and with whom Ocasio-Cortez embarked on a wildly successful “Fight Oligarchy” rally tour last year, speaking to large crowds in both red and blue districts.

Though they have long campaigned together and advance a platform centered on the same signature policies of Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and a tax on billionaire wealth, Sanders consistently ranks among the most well-liked politicians in office, while a New York Times/Siena poll this month showed AOC with just 30% favorability, compared with 41% unfavorability among likely voters.

There are other paths in front of AOC that could put her on a more traditional long-term trajectory to the White House, which has never in modern history been occupied by a president who ascended straight from the US House.

She also said she was considering a primary bid against the Democratic Party’s current Senate leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whom many Democratic voters have come to see as the embodiment of all that is sclerotic and unchanging about their party’s entrenched elite.

At a time when backing from corporations and other powerful special interests plays an unprecedented role in achieving political power, Ocasio-Cortez emphasized her near-exclusive backing from small donors, which she said makes her one of “very few people who are financially independent from special interests that are able to advocate directly for the needs of working people.”

Regardless of the decision she makes, she recognizes the enormous stakes.

“It’s very all or nothing,” she said. “If I were to run in this cycle, and not win, I would be done.”

“And I am not opposed to that,” she added. “That, in and of itself, does not exclude the decision... But it has to make it worth it.”

Ocasio-Cortez has previously emphasized that her “ambitions” have less to do with achieving the highest possible seat for herself than with helping her movement succeed.

“My ambition is to change this country,” she said during a forum in May. “Presidents come and go, Senate, House seats, elected officials come and go, but single-payer healthcare is forever, a living wage is forever, workers’ rights are forever, women’s rights, all of that.”

She told the Times that the question that will ultimately determine her path forward is: “Where can I do the most good?”

‘Corruption of the Highest Order,’ Says Troy Jackson After Explosive Susan Collins Report

“We deserve answers about every contract and every conversation that Collins and her team facilitated on the backs of taxpayers. The jig is up.”



Maine Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson speaks at a town hall on September 13, 2026 in Biddeford, Maine.
(Photo by Joseph Prezioso/Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Sep 22, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson pounced on Tuesday after ProPublica published a damning story putting incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins at the center of what the publication described as a “sprawling pay-to-play operation.”

In a statement released shortly after the ProPublica story dropped, Jackson accused Collins of engaging in “corruption of the highest order.”


“Susan Collins delivered millions in taxpayer dollars for a corrupt donor bankrolling her campaign,” said Jackson, “and then [President] Donald Trump helped her cover it up.”

The ProPublica report unearthed internal records revealing an FBI investigation into defense contractor Navatek, now known as Martin Defense Group, for making campaign contributions to politicians in exchange for federal contracts.

According to ProPublica, former Navatek CEO Martin Kao told a group of FBI agents and federal prosecutors in 2022 about a 2019 meeting he’d had with the head of a pro-Collins super political action committee where he committed to cut a big check to the Maine Republican’s campaign if she steered federal cash to his company.

After the meeting, ProPublica wrote, Kao “sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company” and then told Navatek executives in an internal email two months later that “Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts.”

The alleged corruption outlined in the report went far beyond Collins, as Kao also provided FBI agents with a 50-page document that named “dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers, and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts.”

However, the probe into Kao’s alleged efforts to bribe politicians was shut down shortly after Trump returned to the White House in 2025, which Jackson said may explain why Collins “voted with him 96% of the time and has rubber-stamped his agenda to hurt Maine.”

“Susan Collins doesn’t care,” Jackson added, “that we’re losing our healthcare that ICE is killing people on the streets, and that we’ve been dragged into a pointless war—as long as her donors get their contracts and her coffers get filled. We deserve answers about every contract and every conversation that Collins and her team facilitated on the backs of taxpayers. The jig is up.”

Annie Clark, Collins’ deputy chief of staff, disputed the allegations made in the ProPublica story, and accused the publication of wrongly lending credibility to Kao, whom she said “began making outlandish charges about the Collins office, deflecting blame from himself” for his own criminal behavior.

“The seven-year-old allegations made against Sen. Collins and her staff in this piece are categorically false,” said Clark. “There have never been any allegations of wrongdoing by the Collins for Senator campaign, and the campaign was never the target of the FBI investigation.”

‘Incredible Story of Corruption’: Bombshell Report Puts Susan Collins at Center of Massive Bribery Scheme

ProPublica reported that the US senator from Maine, now running for a sixth term, was the “most important patron” of a defense company accused of bribing members of Congress for federal contracts.


US Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) arrives for a Senate hearing on June 17, 2026.
(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Sep 22, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Explosive reporting published Tuesday by the investigative outlet ProPublica details how US Sen. Susan Collins was at the center of a “sprawling pay-to-play operation” under which the chief executive of a Hawaii-based defense contractor allegedly funneled campaign cash to lawmakers in exchange for lucrative federal contracts.

ProPublica’s story—based on internal emails, thousands of pages of legal records, interviews, and other evidence—reveals for the first time the existence of an FBI investigation into possible bribery of members of Congress, including Collins, by the defense contractor Navatek, a probe that was shuttered after President Donald Trump took office for his second term.

In late 2019, according to ProPublica, the head of a pro-Collins super PAC, Scott Reed, met with then-Navatek CEO Martin Kao and other executives at a Washington, DC bakery and asked them for a $500,000 donation to the longtime Maine senator’s 2020 reelection bid.

“If they cut a big check, the CEO told Reed, Navatek wanted Collins to guarantee tens of millions of dollars in additional federal funding,” ProPublica reported. “After the Corner Bakery meeting, [Kao] sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company. Two months later, he told Navatek executives that Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts, according to an internal company email.”

In 2022, Kao pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions. The $150,000 check to the pro-Collins group, the 1820 PAC, was funneled through an entity titled “the Society of Young Women Scientist [sic] and Engineers.” The money flowed from Navatek’s account, violating the ban on federal government contractors making campaign donations.



ProPubulica revealed that Kao, facing years in federal prison, handed FBI agents “a 50-page document naming dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers, and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts.” Kao also told federal agents that Navatek’s federally funded research “was of no real value,” according to ProPublica.

“Of all the politicians Navatek courted under Kao’s leadership, Collins was its most important patron,” the investigative outlet reported. “The senator’s office steered government contracts worth millions toward the company while her campaign was pumping Kao and his network for donations, according to emails seen by ProPublica. Sometimes they cut checks within 24 hours of the annual defense spending bill, which funds military contracts, clearing a key Senate hurdle.”

Collins, who is currently running for a sixth Senate term, denied allegations of bribery through a spokesperson, who dismissed Kao’s claims as “outlandish” and said the Collins campaign “disgorged the illegal contributions that Martin Kao had made without our knowledge.”

But ProPublica’s reporting details, with documentary evidence, Collins’ yearslong relationship with Kao, who first met the Maine senator face-to-face in 2018.

“In that first meeting with Collins and her staff, Kao pitched an $8 million boat hull research project for Navatek and [the University of Maine]. Collins seemed supportive,” the outlet noted. Kao funneled donations to Collins’ campaign, and the senator later included funding for Navatek’s project in the annual US military budget.

“Emails showed her staff made it clear to the Navy that it should send the money to Navatek,” ProPublica reported.

The outlet also revealed the details of a 2019 meeting between Kao, Collins, and Amy Abbott, who was then serving as the campaign finance director for the senator’s 2020 reelection campaign. The meeting took place before an event at Navatek’s Maine headquarters, where Collins posed for pictures with Kao.

“Before the event, Kao said, Collins, Abbott, and another staffer met with him in private,” ProPublica reported. “One of the staffers told Kao the campaign expected more donations. It was in this meeting that Collins said, ‘You’ve seen me deliver,’ he told the FBI.”


Martin Kao, second from left, was pictured with Sen. Susan Collins during an event in August 2019. (Photo: Sen. Susan Collins/Facebook)

Avi Asher-Schapiro, one of four ProPublica reporters who bylined the bombshell story, lamented that “we may never know the full story” of the large-scale bribery scheme alleged by Kao because the Trump administration “took a wrecking ball to the FBI teams and DOJ lawyers specializing in these cases—everyone who worked it is gone.”

“And as far as we know,” Asher-Schapiro added, “the FBI abandoned a witness who might have been able to expose a generational corruption scandal.”

The report was published just weeks before the November midterms, when Collins will attempt to retain her seat against former Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson, who has said that billionaires and corporate-funded super PACs “have her in their pockets.”

Nobel-Winning Economists Say California Billionaire Tax Could Be ‘Turning Point in the Battle Between Democracy and Oligarchy’

“What will allow California to thrive in the future,” the economists said, “is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: it is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth.”


An attendee holds a sign before the start of a rally during the campaign kickoff for the California Billionaire Tax Act at The Wiltern in Los Angeles, February 18, 2026.
(Photo by Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Sep 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

As California voters head to the polls this November, their vote on whether to enact a first-of-its-kind billionaire wealth tax may mark “a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy,” says a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists.

The fight over Proposition 40—a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of those with $1 billion or more in order to fund the state’s healthcare system—has heated up in recent weeks.

The initiative remains popular, with 52% of voters in the state supporting it, according to a poll out last week. But California’s elite have lined up at least $156 million behind an aggressive campaign to kill it, with Google co-founder Sergey Brin alone giving at least $102 million.

And while the proposal has strong backing from progressive politicians and labor unions, some prominent Democrats have tried to stop it, most notably Gov. Gavin Newsom.

As the rich flood the airwaves with ads warning that taxing their wealth would bring about economic ruin, six Nobel laureates, all of whom have won the prestigious prize for their work in economics, signed an open letter on Saturday endorsing Prop. 40.



They are inequality scholar Daron Acemoglu, global poverty researcher Abhijit Banerjee, labor and public finance economist Peter Diamond, anti-poverty economist Esther Duflo, trade economist and columnist Paul Krugman, and inequality and globalization economist Joseph Stiglitz.

“Proposition 40 would be the first-ever tax on billionaire wealth enacted anywhere in the world,” the economists wrote. “California is the right place to take this historic step.”

They explained that the growing number of billionaires in the state in recent decades has helped to make California “one of the most unequal places in America.” While the state’s richest 0.001% of residents were worth a combined $700 billion a decade ago, its 250 billionaires are now worth about $2.3 trillion—equivalent to the entire annual income of the state’s 20 million taxpayers.

“This extreme wealth has translated into extraordinary power,” the economists wrote, citing data showing that during the 2024 election, billionaires accounted for 19% of all federal election spending in the US and that these same billionaires are now marshaling huge sums of money to oppose a tax that would affect them.

While acknowledging that many of California’s wealthiest have “made important contributions, for which they have been amply rewarded,” the researchers noted their use of loopholes in the tax system to effectively pay a lower tax rate than the average Californian.

Most billionaire wealth is held in the form of stocks and other assets whose gains are not generally subject to income tax until they are sold.

As a result, billionaires in the state paid about $3 billion in state income taxes per year from 2019-25, while their fortunes increased by about $1.4 trillion over the period. Dividing total state income tax by that increase equals roughly 1.6%. Meanwhile, the average California family pays about 5-6% of their annual income in state income taxes.

The economists argued that enacting a wealth tax would allow the state to play “catch-up,” raising about $100 billion—enough to offset federal cuts to the state’s Medicaid program enacted in the Republican budget legislation last year, which have helped to fuel thousands of layoffs at hospitals around the state.

They also disputed a common counterargument that the tax will spur billionaire flight from the state and “doom” Silicon Valley.

Not only would the tax apply to any billionaire living in the state as of January 1, 2026, meaning most would not have had time to relocate; they also pointed out that in 2026, after Prop. 40 was announced, California has attracted 80% of the nation’s venture capital funding, compared to just 50% prior to 2025, according to data from PitchBook’s Venture Monitor.

“What will allow California to thrive in the future,” the economists said, “is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: It is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth to which it is only fair to ask the ultrawealthy to contribute.”

They added that passing Prop. 40 “isn’t just critical for Californians,” but could “kickstart a movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states—and eventually at the federal level and in other countries.”



The six Nobel laureates who signed Saturday’s letter are not the first prominent economists to publicly advocate for the wealth tax. University of California, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez helped draft the proposal, while Gabriel Zucman, a chaired professor at the Paris School of Economics, has conducted research underpinning it. Paris School professor Thomas Piketty and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich have also come out in support of the ballot initiative.

Responding to the letter from the Nobel laureates, Dutch historian and wealth tax advocate Rutger Bregman—whose School for Moral Ambition has worked alongside Zucman to promote similar initiatives around the world—said it was “really great to see” more celebrated economists speaking up in favor of the proposal.

“You don’t have to be a radical leftist to see why it’s a good idea,” Bregman wrote on social media. “This is not going to be some kind of socialist revolution. The proposal is about restoring balance to a mixed economy. You could even argue it’s about saving capitalism itself from oligarchs like Sergey Brin. I think that’s exactly why Nobel Prize-winning economists are coming out in favor of this tax.”














UN Expert Says Trump ‘Murder’ Spree at Sea May Constitute ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

“International humanitarian law cannot authorize the United States’ attacks,” wrote human rights expert Ben Saul.


President Donald Trump, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, mimics firing a rifle while speaking to reporters at a briefing on Monday, April 6, 2026 at the White House in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Sep 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

In a report on the Trump administration’s bombing of dozens of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean over the past year, a top United Nations rights expert dismissed President Donald Trump’s claim that the military campaign has been in “self-defense” against “designated terrorist organizations,” and warned that the evidence collected about the strikes could point to crimes against humanity being committed by the United States.

Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, concurred with numerous human rights experts as he said Monday that even if the boats targeted by the US had been engaged in drug trafficking—the central claim of Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as they’ve defended the operation—there are no “international legal rights to unilaterally use military force” to counter drug cartels or other organized crime groups.

He noted that Trump last October notified Congress that the strikes were part of a “non-international armed conflict,” governed by the law of armed conflict, as his administration highlighted the threat of “narco-terrorists.”

“The United States military attacks are, however, contrary to international law, violate the human right to life, and plausibly constitute crimes against humanity,” wrote Saul.

He added that the killings could reasonably constitute “crimes against humanity of murder under customary international law,” noting that such crimes generally require “that murder (or attempted murder) was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.”

Saul compared the bombings to the alleged crimes of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, whose own “war on drugs” included the state killings of thousands of Filipinos accused of trafficking narcotics. Duterte, noted Saul, “is on trial for alleged crimes against humanity of murder for targeting suspected criminals, or criminals having criminal propensities, including drug offenders.”



The special rapporteur’s report pertains to attacks up until August, but came days after the US military said it had killed four more people aboard a vessel in the Caribbean. At least 234 people have been killed in the attacks by US Southern Command so far, in at least 70 strikes.

As with its previous bombings, US Southern Command did not release any evidence in its latest attack that the target was a boat involved in drug trafficking. US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) emphasized at a hearing in June that the “targeting criteria” the military has used in the boat bombing campaign has never included “evidence of narcotics on the boat,” and data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has shown little to no evidence that the flow of drugs into the US has decreased since the bombings began more than a year ago.

In addition to some people who may have been involved in narcotics trafficking, the report reads, “some victims have reportedly included fishermen, migrants, and victims of human trafficking.” The families of some victims have filed legal complaints over their killings.

Moreoever, said Saul, “even assuming that the vessels and crew attacked were members of the criminal groups listed as terrorist, such organizations have not mounted any ‘armed attack’ on the United States so as to trigger a right of self-defense.”

“Deaths from illicit drugs are not assimilable to an armed attack under international law,” he wrote, despite Hegseth’s insistence that the US aims to protect the country from “the drugs that are killing our people.”

Instead of being legitimate attacks in self-defense, wrote Saul, the bombings “amount to serial extrajudicial killings in violation of the right to life, being unjustified in national or personal self-defense or under international humanitarian law, the international law of the sea, narcotics suppression conventions, or international counterterrorism law.”

“International humanitarian law cannot authorize the United States’ attacks,” he added.

Saul said the military campaign, which the Trump administration has recently expanded to include land attacks in Latin American countries, may violate Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the US in 1992.

The report was filed as world leaders gathered in New York for the UN General Assembly and weeks after US Southern Command announced its campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific was expanding to include operations inside countries in Latin America, with leaders who are aligned with Trump hosting joint military operations. The US has particularly deepened military ties with Ecuador in recent months, with the partnership reportedly resulting in torture, arbitrary detentions, and disappearances.

“International law on the right to life,” wrote Saul, “applies to any extraterritorial military or law enforcement action against criminal groups.”



Van Hollen Says ICC Members Would Sanction Trump and Rubio If They ‘Have Any Self-Respect’


In what the Democratic senator called an effort at “obstructing investigations of Netanyahu’s war crimes,” the Trump administration is planning a dramatic escalation of its sanctions against the court.


Stephen Prager
Sep 22, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

As the United Nations General Assembly prepared to meet, a US senator said President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio should face sanctions for their role in trying to destroy the International Criminal Court in order to protect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“If European countries and other signatories to the International Criminal Court (ICC) have any self-respect, they’d sanction Rubio and Trump for obstructing investigations of Netanyahu’s war crimes,” wrote Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) Monday on social media.


He was responding to a report from the Wall Street Journal detailing “a sharp escalation” in the Trump administration’s efforts to, in Rubio’s words, “dismantle” the ICC, which issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024. The body accused the prime minister and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war.




The ICC has also reportedly launched investigations into two other far-right ministers in Netanyahu’s cabinet, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, for their roles in aggressively expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law.

The Trump administration had already aggressively sanctioned ICC officials involved in efforts to prosecute Americans or Israelis, including then-chief prosecutor Karim Khan and several judges and prosecutors. It had also sanctioned UN special rapporteur on Palestine Francesca Albanese and several Palestinian human rights organizations that had brought evidence of alleged Israeli crimes before the tribunal.

Now, The Journal reports that:
The Trump administration is preparing to impose sweeping sanctions on the [ICC]...

The sanctions would forbid most transactions with the ICC after a grace period of six to seven months... That could potentially cripple the court by prohibiting it from conducting transactions in US dollars, cutting it off from much of the global financial system.

It is unclear when a final decision and announcement might come, though some US officials said the move could be finalized as soon as this week during the United Nations General Assembly meeting or in the following days.


Several world leaders have been vocally critical of the US attack on the ICC, though they’ve stopped short of calling for sanctions against US officials.

Responding to Rubio’s sanctions in August, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa said that the ICC’s “judges and officials must be able to act independently and without external pressure.”


Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen, whose nation is home to the ICC, said the Netherlands disapproves of efforts to sanction the court, adding that Dutch officials were actively working with the EU to protect the court from institution-wide US sanctions. Possible protective measures reportedly include alternative banking and payment arrangements outside the US dollar system.

There have also been calls within the European Parliament, including from Spanish socialist politician Iratxe García Pérez and others, to activate the EU’s so-called “blocking statute,” which would prohibit European companies from complying with the US sanctions.