Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Interview

Silicon Valley’s Billionaire Cults Are Coming for Democracy

“We can have billionaires or we can have democracy. We cannot have both,” says Gil Durán.

August 20, 2026



“We can have billionaires or we can have democracy. We cannot have both,” Gil Durán says. In this episode of Movement Memos, Durán and host Kelly Hayes discuss the bizarre fixations and political fantasies of tech billionaires like Peter Thiel, and how those ideas are being translated into real-world governance. Durán and Hayes also discuss Silicon Valley’s Christian cosplay, and how traditional Christian ideas are being used as wrapping paper for the pursuit of AI-first, corporate fiefdoms.


TRANSCRIPT

Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.

Music: Son Monarcas and Dusty Decks

Kelly Hayes: Welcome to “Movement Memos,” a Truthout podcast about organizing, solidarity, and the work of making change. I’m your host, writer and organizer Kelly Hayes. Today we are talking about how the cults of Silicon Valley have seized vast amounts of institutional and political power, and how tech billionaires like Peter Thiel are seeking to remake the world — while repackaging some of their most radical, anti-democratic ideas in the language of Christianity. We’ll be hearing from Gil Durán, author of the new book, The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy.

The growing public animus toward data centers and AI presents us with an opportunity right now to unmask these billionaires and explain their bizarre ambitions and political fantasies to our friends and neighbors in plain terms. I believe that kind of narrative work is a moral and strategic imperative. With Gil’s help, we’ll talk about how Silicon Valley capitalists developed their ideas, the threat they pose to our communities, the forces we will need to defeat their projects, and why we must fight back.

If you appreciate this podcast, and you would like to support “Movement Memos,” you can subscribe to Truthout’s newsletter or make a donation at truthout.org. You can also support the show by subscribing to “Movement Memos” on Apple or Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, or by leaving a positive review on those platforms. Sharing episodes on social media is also a huge help.

Truthout is an independent news organization, publishing stories that the craven corporate press won’t touch. We are a union shop with the best family and sick leave policies in the industry, and we could not do this work without the support of readers and listeners like you. So thank you for believing in us and for all that you do. And with that, I hope you enjoy the show.

[musical interlude]

Kelly Hayes: Gil Durán, welcome to “Movement Memos.”

Gil Durán: Thank you for having me.

Kelly Hayes: How are you doing today?

Gil Durán: Pretty good. Staying busy. Lots of interest in the book, so I’m doing a lot of talking about these ideas these days.

Kelly Hayes: Well, I can understand why there’s a lot of interest. It’s a really fascinating read. Can you tell our audience a bit about your work?

Gil Durán: Well, I’m a journalist who got the journalism bug at a very young age in the fifth grade and went into journalism after college after working on my college paper and doing a lot of internships. But after a few years in journalism, the industry started collapsing (the newspaper industry), and I ended up spending, unexpectedly, 17 years working in politics as a spokesman and communication strategist for a host of California Democratic elected officials like [Governor] Jerry Brown and [Senator] Dianne Feinstein and Attorney General Kamala Harris at the time. And then, in 2018, I got the chance to return to journalism, and I jumped on it. I’d always felt there was something missing. It was this feeling that I was supposed to be somewhere else, not wearing a suit and being in government and consulting and such.

So I returned to journalism in 2018 and was the editorial page editor of both The Sacramento Bee and then the San Francisco Examiner where I stumbled into the thicket of extremist tech politics in 2022. And this led to the next few years of my life where I burned through tremendous amounts of my own money in order to self-fund my research, and it unexpectedly has resulted in a book.

Kelly Hayes: A lot of the story you tell begins with The Sovereign Individual, a relatively obscure 1997 book that imagined technology weakening governments, destroying jobs, and allowing a wealthy cognitive elite to escape taxes, regulation, and democratic control. Peter Thiel seems to have taken that book extremely seriously. What did he find in it, and how much of the political project you describe can be traced back to that vision?

Gil Durán: I believe Peter Thiel found his entire worldview in The Sovereign Individual. He was already pretty right-wing as a young man and in college, but The Sovereign Individual provided a futuristic framework for how, in the 21st century, democracy in nation states would collapse, and we would witness the rise of these wealthy individuals who would be able to float around the world as sovereigns unto themselves, unbeholden to democracy rules, regulations, or laws. And what Peter Thiel subsequently did was build a cult of Silicon Valley apocalypse capitalism, a group of billionaires who believe technology will make democracy obsolete in the 21st century, and that indeed it is their destiny to hasten and accelerate the process of this democratic collapse and specifically, The Sovereign Individual, which was written by two guys who wrote a lot of kooky conspiracy theory stuff. These were not intellectuals or respectable, credible writers or journalists by the time they did this work.

The Sovereign Individual predicted that two technologies would play a key role in the 21st-century attack on democracy. One was called cybercurrency, a new kind of digital money that would undermine government authority and allow the wealthy to exfiltrate their wealth from democratic nations. We would call that crypto today. And the other was advanced automation, which The Sovereign Individual predicted would kill most employment and jobs, thereby leading to an economic collapse that would hasten the democratic collapse. And this book was so influential on Peter Thiel that he’s named it as part of his inspiration for starting PayPal, which was an effort to get ahead of this predicted digital currency. It didn’t quite result in a digital currency. It became a pretty basic payments app. And by the way, Peter Thiel and Co. no longer own PayPal. They sold it a long time ago, but it did make him a multimillionaire and provide the basis for the fortune that would eventually make him a billionaire and make him one of the most powerful and influential people in the world.

So basically, Peter Thiel, who has said he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible and that government is fundamentally evil, was totally turned out by this very weird and kooky and scary apocalyptic conspiracy theory book, and we are currently living with the ramifications, I believe.

Kelly Hayes: And I want to talk more about Peter Thiel, but first, you describe Silicon Valley as a landscape of overlapping cults and quasi-religious movements, including the constellation of ideas known as the TESCREAL bundle. Why has the tech industry produced these totalizing belief systems and what political work do those beliefs do for the people who hold them?

Gil Durán: Well, it was Dr. Emile Torres and Dr. Timnit Gebru who came up with TESCREAL as an acronym that bundles these strange beliefs: transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism, and longtermism. And at the heart of these very weird ideas, which I won’t explain every single one of them because that could take all day and it’d be better if one of them explained it, is this idea that technology is about to fundamentally transform everything, how the world works, how politics works, how money works, how human beings work, how life works. They believe that they’re going to create this sort of AI God that will allow for eternal life or multiplanetary colonization and for humans to merge with machines and become godlike creatures.

And much of the AI discussion these days from the industry is based on these ideas that AI is not just a tool that will make certain parts of life better or make a better spell checker or recipe generator, but to fundamentally transform what it means to be human and to fundamentally shift the economy by getting rid of jobs and turning us into a society where somehow we have a superabundance that allows us all to live happily though we have no meaning and no work in our lives. This is the narrative coming out of the AI industry or else a technology that could possibly, in addition to killing all jobs, wipe humanity from the face of the earth because it will be so powerful and magical that it’s like this big monster we’re creating. But the only way to stop the monster from being created and killing us is to pour trillions and trillions of dollars into the pockets of a small handful of Silicon Valley billionaires so they can stop it from doing the bad thing and make it do the good thing.

Now, that’s a lot to say there, but it’s not too hard to understand why this religious narrative of AI has spawned some cult religions like transhumanism, like longtermism, like cosmism. The idea is that AI will be the savior and liberator of these people, and all we have to do is burn up the earth and maximize compute and acceleration in order to create our new God. I know this sounds really kooky if you haven’t heard of it, but they’re pretty explicit about this stuff. They talk openly about things like creating the thermodynamic god, which is this mysterious boom loop that will appear if we only burn enough fossil fuels to create the mega super AI, which by the way may not even be possible or realistic in any way. That’s part of the mythology is that this is actual intelligence that will create some superintelligence. But I think it’s important because the question is why do the most successful and wealthy people in our society seek to destroy the country and the society and the system that allowed them to achieve such success?

And that’s where you get into this idea of technological accelerationism. They feel that they are on the cusp of this magical, mystical, religious breakthrough to defeat death and to create a new kind of god in their own words. Many of them say this explicitly. But the only thing standing in the way of this unfettered expansion and acceleration of AI is democracy, is law, is regulation, is the needs and wants and desires of regular people. And so one of the reasons, maybe the core reason why they need to destroy democracy is in order to enable this unfettered acceleration. They call it effective accelerationism, this acceleration into the future. So there’s a religious basis underlying this desire to destroy our democratic system because otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense. Why would you want to destroy the exploitative capitalist machine with nuclear bombs that has created and enabled your success? No one has less of a reason to complain about our system than the billionaires do. They’re the ones winning.

So it doesn’t make any rational sense for them to adopt this extremist political viewpoint, except that they are animated by a sort of religious idea of what technology will enable them to achieve. A lot of them are also afraid to die, and they think AI is going to save them. So they’re preaching this sort of apocalypse, and that’s why I call this Silicon Valley apocalypse capitalism. They’re not promising to create new widgets and devices that make us happy and more connected like it was in the past 20 years. This is about, “Hey, we’re creating the thing that’s going to kill everybody maybe. So just sit back and hope that we cut you off a piece of our abundance later, and everything will be okay.” And that’s a very strange message and it’s no wonder now that people are rising up against data centers and AI and starting to hate billionaires in larger and larger numbers.

Kelly Hayes: We had Émile Torres on the show back in 2023 to talk about TESCREAL and longtermism, and I love Émile — they’re just so incredibly insightful, and I’m so grateful for their analysis. But I remember some friends feeling like they didn’t quite know what to do with that episode. They thought, sure, these people who are prioritizing the well-being of trillions of theoretical, future digital people over the billions of people alive today sound absolutely bananas, but what are they gonna do with that ideology? You can’t sell that to the masses. So, how dangerous could these people and their cults really be?

But what I was seeing, and what I was trying to convey to people, was that the people building power around these ideas had already consolidated an enormous amount of economic, political, and institutional power. If we look at the decades-long political project that brought some of the objectives of Christian nationalism to fruition in recent years, with TESCREAL, we’re talking about something that’s advanced much more quickly. Because while these tech power players haven’t necessarily been marketing these ideologies to the masses, over the last few decades, they have been marketing products that have sort of containerized and redefined modern life, and they’ve translated that wealth and that industrial and institutional capture into a whole lot of political power.

Now, a few years after Émile and I had that conversation, these tech-right ideologies have a shocking level of influence inside the federal government and over AI and crypto policy. They’re devouring some of the inner workings of government, in a similar manner to how they’ve devoured industries. And they’re also doing something else — they’re sort of repackaging these fringe ideas of theirs in more marketable, palatable ways. Which brings us to Christianity. Let’s talk about Peter Thiel’s fixation on the Antichrist, which is one of the stranger threads in the book, but you argue that it has real political significance. What is Thiel actually saying when he talks about the Antichrist? And how does that kind of apocalyptic thinking shape the way he understands political enemies, technology, and power?

Gil Durán: When Peter Thiel talks about the Antichrist, he’s confessing. He’s confessing his worldview. He believes we are in an existential battle over the future. And on one side is the billionaires and accelerationism, and on the other side is democracy and the majority of people in the world. He often throws communism in there as one of his demonized enemies, but he’s really talking about democracy if you look more deeply into it because they’re the ones aligned behind Trump and this authoritarian leadership. So when Peter Thiel describes the Antichrist, he describes this mysterious force or figure that will rise up suddenly to seize massive amounts of power and seize total control over the world by preaching peace and safety. None of this comes from the Bible, by the way. This is all his weird interpretation of the Bible.

But when he describes Silicon Valley, which he has also said it would be a religion of technicity that seeks to create an artificial world where people can no longer distinguish their real lives from the lives that are artificially being created for them, he said this in an essay back in 2007, he’s describing Silicon Valley, but I don’t know that he knows that he’s doing that, or else he’s doing it on purpose. It’s a double entendre. So the framework of the Antichrist is this idea that we’re in an existential battle, which we are. It’s a war of the billionaires against everyone else. But he uses it to try to scapegoat all of his enemies. It’s Greta Thunberg, it’s AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], it’s democracy, it’s AI regulation, it’s anybody who opposes tech acceleration. Anybody Peter Thiel doesn’t like is the Antichrist in Peter Thiel’s Antichrist spiel. And by the way, theologians have completely rejected, mocked, and scorned all of his gobbledygook. This is a DIY theology from a guy who, as far as I can tell, isn’t even really Christian, Christian in name only.

Thiel has himself said that he’s religious but not spiritual, which means he likes the order and hierarchy and rules of religion without the mystery and spirit of religion. Usually, people say the opposite. They say they’re spiritual, but not religious. Thiel likes to reverse things a lot. I call it “Thiellian inversion.” He takes something and does the reverse of it. So it’s strange that he’s talking about the Antichrist because he’s, like, a terrible spokesman for Christianity. But I think the other thing he’s doing that relates to what we just talked about with the TESCREAL bundle is Thiel is trying to put a Christian mask on these TESCREAL ideas. And I think he’s trying to hush the louder voices in the TESCREAL movement and encourage them to adopt a Christian pose because that’s essential to this alliance they’ve made with the Republican right and the evangelical base of Trump’s MAGA fascist movement, which is so important because there’s a tension where the evangelicals in Trump’s base are very suspicious of the tech guys and understand that they’re a bunch of godless weirdo heathens.

And so, there’s been this news recently where, oh, there’s this Christian revival in Silicon Valley and it’s led by none other than Peter Thiel, where they’re having these meetings to talk about how basically, I don’t know, Christ would be a VC [venture capitalist] if he returned to earth. It’s total bullshit, but I think it’s got multi-layers. One is Thiel confessing his worldview that we’re in an existential crisis and everyone he doesn’t like is the Antichrist. The other is that, “hey, guys, let’s act like we’re Christians and speak in Christian terms while essentially pursuing acceleration TESCREAL goals.” And if you look at the TESCREAL bundle of beliefs, what are they promising through AI? They’re promising salvation, the creation of God, eternal life, escape from earth, transcendence into the heavens, the stars, multiplanetary life, paradise, an abundance that comes after we overcome our enemies and achieve the new paradisical realm that will be created by AI.

Their ideas literally map directly onto Christianity in this perverse anti-human way, which some might say is very much like what the Antichrist would do. Now, I don’t believe in the Antichrist. I’m not a Bible-thumping Christian. I was raised in Catholicism, but I don’t obsess over these ideas. I don’t go to church. But the very idea that Peter Thiel’s talking about the Antichrist so much is in itself a signal of the kind of emergency that we’re in. And I believe that it’s an example of this billionaire psychosis that gets created when people have too much money, too much power, and no one around them to tell them to sit down and shut up and stop sounding weird. So it’s a saving grace that he’s sounding an alarm. Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist. We should be very afraid given his proximity to power and the number of people he influences directly.

Kelly Hayes: That quote about him being religious but not spiritual was one of my favorites in the book because it is so sitcom-silly. It sounds like something a character on Parks and Rec would say. But it also feels revealing, because what seems useful to these guys about religion isn’t necessarily faith. It’s authority. It’s hierarchy. It’s having a set of simple ideas that people are supposed to defer to. That way, nothing is interrogated.

I’m thinking about Elon Musk calling himself a “cultural Christian” and making these very utilitarian comments about Christianity — maybe religion is good, maybe it keeps people from being sad. There’s something so instrumental about that. And I think it connects to a much broader hostility toward the Enlightenment and toward critical thought that runs through these politics. Because at the same time that they’re repackaging themselves in this language of faith and tradition, they’re building technologies that encourage us to outsource more and more of our own thinking and judgment. Sam Altman talks about intelligence becoming a utility that people pay for. And I keep thinking about what kind of political subject that vision creates — people who are increasingly de-skilled and dependent on systems controlled by a handful of enormously powerful people.

And while these politics are strategically dehumanizing, toward all of us who aren’t billionaires or major players in the tech world, they’re also really insulting to people of faith, because what we’re talking about is a kind of perverse form of religious cosplay.

Gil Durán: Yeah, it’s weird. It’s really a touchy thing for billionaires to try to claim Christianity. Jesus Christ, who was known for his message of love and peace, one of the only groups he really shat upon was rich people who he said the camel had an easier chance of getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven. So it’s very strange and it’s very fraught with danger when billionaires try to embrace Christianity. And that’s what is happening though. This idea that the people who really need Jesus Christ or who are the most important in Christianity are the people in Silicon Valley today. This is something that Peter Thiel says in one of his Antichrist lectures in San Francisco. The people in this room, the people listening to his Antichrist spiel in San Francisco are doing the most important Christian work in the world today, which would be news to the Jesuits out in some poor, starving village full of poverty and misery trying to eke out some kind of salvation for people there.

This is a very arrogant and solipsistic claim to make. But I think one of the strangest things about this whole religious fervor is that JD Vance is pretending to be a Catholic largely because of Peter Thiel. And he has said that it was Thiel’s ideas that inspired his conversion to Catholicism. And similarly, if you look at Vance’s past interviews around the Hillbilly Elegy time, he described religion as a cultural tchotchke where he grew up. He was raised in a culture of Protestant evangelism, but he’s described it as something where you didn’t really have it. You didn’t go to church. It’s just that what’s part of your identity. Obviously, you believe in Jesus and there’s a picture on the wall. And he later becomes an atheist before converting to Catholicism at the age of 35. Apparently, he did that mostly in order to argue against the authority of the Pope, which he has infamously done for the past few years.

But you see this everywhere you look, this idea that religion has an important role to play in the lives of men who are essentially the opposite of Christianity. And that’s sort of scary because I think one thing Peter Thiel understands is the power of religion and apocalyptic language to motivate people to be a powerful force in politics. And that’s pretty much the same thing Elon Musk is saying. A cultural Christian is what JD Vance is describing as his upbringing, a cultural tchotchke. So they’re not seeding religion. They’re trying to claim religion as their motivation to give them this mask of familiar morality that obscures their true beliefs and their true aims and goals.

Kelly Hayes: Absolutely. And I appreciate you naming JD Vance’s role. I learned new things about Vance reading your book, including how mediocre he really was as a player in the VC world. But the role he now plays as a bridge between the Christian right and the tech right feels really important. Christianity offers these tech agendas a familiar moral language and a kind of traditional posture that can obscure how fringe and radical some of the underlying politics actually are.

And that repackaging makes me think about a broader shift in how Silicon Valley presents itself. A few years ago, I talked with Brian Merchant about the way the industry’s pitch to the public had changed. Tech companies once sold us the idea that technology would create a better world for everyone. Increasingly, billionaires seem to be selling us the idea that we’re already living in a dystopia, and that we should buy up every apocalyptic advantage we can. There’s also this strange tendency to invoke dystopian science fiction almost aspirationally — to take worlds that were imagined as warnings about alienation, social collapse, and technological domination and treat them as models for a future we’re supposed to adapt ourselves to. The pitch is no longer that technology will deliver a better tomorrow. It’s that upheaval is inevitable, their technologies will be at the center of it, and our best hope is to buy in. Is that shift part of what you call “apocalypse capitalism”?

Gil Durán: Most definitely, and they’re overtly selling it now, especially with the rise of AI. One of the major selling points has been that if we don’t invest in these guys so that they can develop this thing the right way, it will destroy us all. We have to align it with human needs. But they’re the only ones saying that, “Oh, this is going to be this supermonster that can kill us.” And if that were the case, why would we leave it to the private sector to develop such a dangerous technology? Would we allow corporations to independently develop big new weapons that could destroy the entire planet? No. So there’s this idea that they’re creating an apocalyptic technology that’s going to change everything and be the last invention. And fortunately for us, they’ve gone around saying that, which has created this popular rejection of AI and data centers and billionaires. So I definitely think that that’s a part of it.

The other part of it, I think, and Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor call it “end times fascism,” is this merger with the apocalyptic politics of MAGA, which also have a religious framework in which Trump is this figure sent from God as an instrument of vengeance and power to achieve some sort of return of Jesus through the coming of the apocalypse, the wars in Israel, et cetera. There’s a real crazy apocalyptic belief at the core of the MAGA movement as well. And it’s completely delusional and deranged. How could anyone see Trump as an expression or an ally of Jesus Christ? I mean, he literally posted a photo of himself as Jesus Christ and has multiple times compared himself to Christ with him being more favorable and better than Jesus Christ. This is not something that a real Christian, a real believer in Christianity would ever do.

So I think there’s that melding as well that makes it a fascist movement. On one basic level, the tech billionaires are fascist because they have aligned with the fascist movement. And at the core of that is this movement that melds government power with corporate power with religious power into one unified monopolistic authoritarian entity. And so, that religious element is very important because it’s totalizing. It’s all of your life. It’s not just your money or your political beliefs. It’s your moral and spiritual belief system. And so, that’s where the apocalypse capitalism gets a bit even more dangerous is because the tech fascists have become a parasite on the MAGA movement. They’re sucking its power in order to achieve their goals. Now, if you look deeper into what these guys say, they don’t really have respect for your average red hat Trump voter.

Those people are just temporary allies who help to fuel their own designs for power under a president who is raking in crypto corruption, creating a tower of political corruption so unprecedented and massive that it’s even hard to explain with words. So yeah, apocalypse capitalism. Yeah, I think we’ve seen it more fully develop in the past couple of years, especially under the return to Trump, the fact that we’re now speaking about this demonic communist threat. And when Charlie Kirk was shot, for a day or two on X, there was this trending idea that this was the work of demonic forces and we have to rise up against these demons who are basically Democrats and liberals. And so, you see this bubbling up, this idea that, again, we’re in this existential battle and we’re coming to the final moment here where we’re going to know the future. It’s going to be decided in some kind of terrible, violent upheaval where the world is completely different after that, whether we have democracy or where we don’t have democracy. And we’re still very much in the middle of this struggle.

Kelly Hayes: And these anti-democratic elites also have a vision for what comes next as democracy is demolished. What is the network state, and why do you see it as such an important part of the tech elites’ long-term political vision?

Gil Durán: The network state is this cult ideology which argues that democracy should be replaced by corporate-run tech city states, essentially, new startup nations that will replace existing nations and therefore replace democracy, for the most part. And the network state is important because even though it sounds like a fringe kooky thing… There was a book written by a guy named Balaji Srinivasan in 2022 called The Network State: How to Start a New Country, and you can read it for free online. You can find it with any search engine. And there’s a one-sentence version, a one-paragraph version, a one-page version, and then a 400-page version of this idea that the United States is collapsing and it’s going to be replaced by these new corporate-run fiefdoms, essentially, these corporate-run territories. And as crazy as that sounds, you got to keep in mind that Balaji Srinivasan is, of course, a protege of Peter Thiel.

And there’s a company called Pronomos Capital, a venture capital company that is brought into existence to fund these projects all over the world. In addition, we’re already seeing this idea being tried in Honduras where there’s a tech-funded wannabe city territory called Prospera. And Trump, in his 2024 campaign plan, called for the creation of 10 new Freedom Cities in the United States. There’s talk of building one of these cities in Greenland. That’s been part of Trump’s whole argument for stealing Greenland. You’ve got these tech guys pushing to build a new tech dystopia network state city there. And there’s even a proposal to build a new network state freedom city on the ruins of Gaza. I mean, the Wall Street Journal wrote about this. And it’s like Jared Kushner’s involved, and Trump tweeted out an AI-created video that showed a Trump hotel and casino on the beach at Gaza with money raining from the sky and Elon Musk sunning himself.

So somehow this idea of creating these new billionaire-owned private territories has gone from being this weird niche cult in Silicon Valley with a self-published book that’s free online to becoming something that the Trump administration, at least on a superficial level, has been pushing as potential policy. Now, Trump hasn’t really mentioned the Freedom Cities in a while. There’s been a lobbying effort that Wired wrote about in Washington to get these things enabled. Kind of hard to do. But what’s interesting to me is that while Trump has called for these Freedom Cities and there’s a whole billionaire-funded lobbying effort to create them, the media has mentioned this idea a couple of times, but no one has explained what these things are, why we need them, or where the idea comes from. And I feel like if Kamala Harris had become president, The New York Times would do a full investigation of what the hell’s a Freedom City and does it come from this weird ass book written by a Peter Thiel protege. But instead, we have this weird silence around this idea.

And I think another key to understanding the Freedom City is that, as I write in the book, Balaji Srinivasan didn’t come up with the idea of the network state on his own. He got it from Curtis Yarvin who wrote a long essay in the 2000s called “Patchwork” in which he proposed a future in which the United States would be dissolved. And instead, we would have the rise of these corporate-run autocracies. And he used as an example, something he called Frisk Corp, a future San Francisco where there would be absolute total surveillance by an authoritarian corporate government that would be so powerful that it even had the power to execute its citizens for no reason and no cause. And he suggested that in this future Frisk Corp, unproductive people could be turned into biodiesel to fuel the city’s Muni buses.

But he said, “Oh, well, I’m just kidding. Instead we need to have a humane alternative to genocide,” and then suggested that we lock unproductive people, meaning the poor, into these individual cells where they would spend their whole lives in these basic virtual reality prisons and not be on the street. And that’s horrifying for many reasons, especially since it would be much cheaper to give them housing and health care and food instead of locking them in virtual reality prisons, which sounds pretty expensive. But this idea of creating these new patchworks comes from Yarvin. And what Balaji Srinivasan does in The Network State is strip out all of Yarvin’s crazy genocidal ideas and try to present the idea as this startup-friendly concept that now has a venture capital fund (Balaji Srinivasan is an advisor to Pronomos Capital) that is trying to build these things all over the world.

So it’s this dystopian idea from science fiction. A lot of people bring up Neal Stephenson. Quinn Slobodian, who’s a Boston University historian, wrote a whole book called Crack-Up Capitalism about the long history of the dream of building these new territories where the usual rules don’t apply to some wealthy group of capitalists. You could trace it back to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged where these wealthy industrialists hide out in their little private zone and wait for the world to fall apart. It’s basically a vision in which democracy no longer exists, and the wealthy are now the monarchs and the dictators of the world.

Kelly Hayes: Trump went from calling Bitcoin “a scam” to becoming deeply financially entangled with crypto as he returned to the White House. You write that crypto’s real political innovation turned out to be its ability to capture government through money and corruption. How important has crypto been to the tech right’s seizure of political power?

Gil Durán: Crypto was long envisioned as a way that anarcho-capitalists would be able to escape government authority and move around the world without being under government surveillance. It was seen as this liberatory tool that would be against government power, that would undermine government power. What has actually happened now is quite different. Crypto has become a major force in seizing government power and putting government in the hands of crypto billionaires. Donald Trump spent years deriding crypto as a scam and as a ripoff and as something that wasn’t even real money. And on the day he returned to the White House in 2025, Donald Trump became a crypto billionaire and subsequently became the crypto bro-in-chief, the main evangelist for crypto in the entire world. And it turns out that crypto is not an anti-government tool. Crypto is a tool for seizing government power because we have a system where you can buy government power.

And crypto, which wasn’t even a player in politics 10 years ago, is now suddenly in the last five years, the top monied force in American politics. Hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into our elections to take out politicians who are unfriendly to crypto and to install politicians who are basically owned by the crypto industry. It’s grown so enormously fast that it’s terrifying when you look at a chart, and it’s bigger than all of the other industries who have played in this game. And now, AI is following the crypto playbook of flooding their money into our political system. And I call crypto a weapon of mass corruption because that’s what’s happening. I mean, the Trump family has gained billions of dollars in wealth via crypto in the last two years openly, transparently. This is written about in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, you name it.

People are buying Trump’s crypto in order to curry favor with him. They’re losing their money through this mechanism. So crypto is just a form of political corruption. They finally found a use case besides terrorism, drugs, human trafficking, and gambling. It’s political corruption. And so, this, again, is delivering on one of the prophecies of The Sovereign Individual that crypto would be a massive tool for undermining government. And look at what they’ve been able to achieve so far. “DOGE,” even though it, at least in its first incarnation, didn’t last very long, has caused tremendous damage to the American government and to the country’s standing in the world. Millions of people are predicted to die in poor countries because of the cuts to USAID. And in my book, I call that a “Silicon Valley genocide.” The richest people in the world delivering a targeted hit to the poorest people in the world, causing massive amounts of unnecessary preventable deaths.

And it didn’t even save money, by the way. DOGE cost money. It added to the deficit. And the most chilling thing about DOGE, and this was written about actually in the Washington Post surprisingly and even in The New York Times, is that that idea was first written up by Curtis Yarvin in his blog in the 2000s where he said that a future president acting like a dictator should install a CEO and purge the federal government of federal employees and cut international aid programs and completely disrupt America’s diplomatic standing around the world. And he called this idea “RAGE,” retire all government employees, and this eventually becomes DOGE.

And what’s even more scary about this is that in 2021 when he was running for Senate, JD Vance gave an interview in which he quoted Yarvin’s idea specifically for purging the federal government. And Vance predicted that in 2024, that Trump would return to power and that he should do all of the things he is currently doing. And what we didn’t know at the time was that JD Vance would also be the vice president to Donald Trump, a man he once referred to as an “opioid of the masses,” as “cultural heroin,” and as “America’s Hitler.” But that’s the power of billionaire money and Peter Thiel, and that’s the corrupting power of crypto.

Kelly Hayes: The book also shows that these tech projects can be surprisingly vulnerable. You describe how, in Solano County, California, a group of tech billionaires spent nearly a billion dollars buying land for a planned new city, only to run into overwhelming local opposition and abandon their ballot measure. What does that fight tell us about the limits of billionaire power? And where else do you see vulnerabilities that organized people can exploit?

Gil Durán: Unfortunately, the California Forever story is not over. Now, the billionaires are going directly to Governor Gavin Newsom to try to get a state law to impose their city on the people of Solano County. They couldn’t win a ballot measure. They needed a ballot measure with the majority of people voting to create this new city on land that they had secretly bought up for five years. And 70 percent of the voters in the polls were opposed to this idea, including large amounts of Republicans. In fact, I think Republican voters were even more opposed to the tech billionaire city than the Democratic voters, but independents were also against it. So they abandoned the ballot measure. But it was clear early on that they weren’t done because they had hired up a lot of Newsom’s political advisors as their consultants. And lo and behold, they are now working to get last minute legislation passed this month in secrecy that would basically exempt their city from laws and allow them to build it there.

So we’re going to see what Newsom does on that. His Office of Economic Development put out a memo supporting the project, which pretty much means that Newsom supports the project. And the main lobbyist California Forever has hired is a guy named Jason Kinney, who’s a close friend of Gavin Newsom, Gavin Newsom’s favorite lobbyist. In fact, when Newsom got in trouble a few years ago for having that fancy dinner at The French Laundry during the pandemic lockdowns, it was Jason Kinney’s birthday party, the lobbyist’s birthday party. So California Forever is playing the Sacramento game now of hiring up people and trying to get the bill through. At the same time, everywhere these people go, they’re hated. Whether it’s trying to build a tech billionaire city and getting rejected by Republicans and Democrats alike or trying to put these data centers everywhere, people are pushing back, and that’s something that gives me hope.

People are also organizing against Flock. There’s the Purge Palantir campaign, which is getting lots of attention and helping make people aware of the degree to which Palantir is burrowing into every aspect of our government and needs to be rejected. I think there’s been a lack of focus on it from establishment politicians and from the establishment media. So the word is not getting out there as much as it should, but I think people are primed to organize against billionaire power. They’re already doing it. What we need is it to get loud enough so that even the mainstream politicians like Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla are out there talking about pushing back directly on billionaire power. There’s this weird silence coming out of the establishment, which is readily criticizing Donald Trump, who’s this doddering, old, crypto corrupt fool, but they’re very hesitant to say anything directly about the billionaires of Silicon Valley.

A lot of this stuff is coming out of California, and it’s strange the degree to which Gavin Newsom and none of our top elected officials will name that. That’s somewhere they could be effective actually, naming and shaming and pushing back on these billionaires behind Trump who live in our state, but they won’t do it. Why? Because they either are afraid of the billionaire money coming after them, or worse, they want the billionaire money funding their future campaigns. So I think we’re still on the fence in terms of how this ends up, but there are promising signs because people who aren’t even normally activists are organizing against billionaire power as it manifests in their communities via data centers. In fact, I was really heartened recently. A relative of mine who has never shown any interest in politics posting and urging her friends on Instagram to come to this data center protest in our hometown. And I thought, “Wow, even they’re getting engaged in this stuff now.” That’s how much the anti-data center movement has penetrated.

But I think what we need to help the public understand is that it’s not just the data centers that are invading our lives and our communities. It’s the crypto corruption. It’s the tech fascism on even the much higher level that has captured Washington, D.C. and is currently wielding a tremendous and dangerous amount of power in our system.

Kelly Hayes: I really appreciate that point, and I appreciate the point you make in the book that this threat extends so far beyond Trump. These forces are so deeply enmeshed with this administration that I think it can be easy to understand them as simply part of the Trumpian threat we’re up against right now. But even if Trump were removed from the equation, we’d still be contending with billionaire power, the tech right, and these anti-democratic projects. And the Democratic Party does not exist in opposition to those forces. So if we want anyone to actually constrain this power, we’re going to have to build a hell of a lot more political momentum around doing that.

Given that our audience is largely composed of activists and organizers, I’ve been thinking a lot about how people can talk about these issues in their own communities. When Émile Torres and I discussed TESCREAL a few years ago, part of the difficulty was simply explaining why these bizarre, cultish ideas were actually important and threatening. Now we’re in a different moment. People are organizing against data centers. Workers are pushing back against AI. Communities are confronting surveillance technologies and seeing how these systems affect their lives in really material ways. Those struggles give people something concrete to organize around.

But we’ve also been talking today about the larger political project behind some of this — the corruption, the cultish ideologies, the attack on democracy, the aspiration to replace liberal democracy with corporate dictatorships. Given your background in both politics and journalism, how do you think people should talk about those larger projects in their communities? What language or framing helps people understand what they’re actually up against?

Gil Durán: This is a battle of billionaires versus freedom. It’s a fight to defend ourselves against an unprecedented existential threat. We can have billionaires or we can have democracy. We cannot have both. And ours is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And right now, we have a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires. And that’s not all Donald Trump’s fault, by the way. The Democrats were doing this, too. The billionaires just acted a little more normal and polite when the Democrats were in power. But if we do not crush billionaire power in our time, the billionaires are going to crush us.

And right now, we have a situation where a lot of people are living in fear as the richest people in the world ally with Donald Trump to destroy the country and to terrorize the population. We’ve got masked goons with guns roaming around kidnapping people in the streets. And in a democracy, the people should not be afraid of the billionaires. The billionaires should be afraid of the people. So I think a message people understand, and you can see it in the polls, is that this is about the role of the billionaires in our lives. This is about whether we’re going to have… We cannot have a democracy if we continue to escalate and accelerate this massive inequality, and that’s exactly what AI and crypto are doing right now. In fact, I would say that’s what they are designed to do. And now, they have become completely enmeshed in our government, and our government power is being used to increase the already amazing and massive power of the wealthiest people in the world.

So I would say you have to name the enemy. You have to name the person who is doing this. The power that is most responsible for what is happening to us today. And Donald Trump’s an 80-something-year-old man. He won’t be around for long. But this is not really about Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a heat shield for these guys. Donald Trump is just the figurehead of what is actually a regime, and it’s a regime of billionaires, and it’s us or them. And there are only about 1,000 billionaires in the United States and 3,000 in the whole world. There are 8.3 billion people. We’ve got the numbers. And I’d say once we fully wake up to the threat that the billionaires pose to human life in general, not to mention jobs, the economy, our futures, the billionaires will be running for cover.

That’s why they’re building all these bunkers, by the way. The people promising to create abundance are also building bunkers and buying islands to hide out. What’s that all about? Well, that’s what they really think is going to happen in the future. And so, I think we need to start talking about billionaire accountability. And I think it’s important to do that because right now, they feel like they can do anything, and we need to make them aware that there’s a good chance of consequences in the future, and that consequences for billionaires will be a popular issue to run on in the next few years.

Kelly Hayes: I certainly hope so. Well, as we wind things down is there anything else you would like to share with or ask of the audience today?

Gil Durán: I’d say stay hopeful and stay positive. They haven’t won yet, and they haven’t thought of everything. They aren’t expecting the degree of pushback they’re going to get. And so, fascism thrives on fear, on making people afraid to speak out or to imagine a better future. And right now, the billionaires are monopolizing our visions of the future. And if they can imagine a world without us, we can imagine a world without them.

Kelly Hayes: Well, thank you so much for those insights. I’m really grateful for this conversation and I hope everyone will check out Gil’s book, The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy. You can also hear more from Gil by checking out his newsletter, The Nerd Reich, which you can find at thenerdreich.com. Gil Durán, thanks for your work and thanks so much for joining me today.

Gil Durán: Thanks for having me.

Kelly Hayes: I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. And remember, our best defense against cynicism is to do good and to remember that the good we do matters. Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.

Show Notes


End Times Fascism and the Fight for the Living World by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor


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


Kelly Hayes
Kelly Hayes is a Menominee author, organizer, movement educator and photographer. She is the host of Truthout‘s podcast Movement Memos, and the creator of Organizing My Thoughts, a weekly newsletter about politics and justice work. She is co-author of the book Let This Radicalize You, with Mariame Kaba, and editor of the upcoming book, Read This When Things Fall Apart: Letters to Activists in Crisis. Kelly’s written work can also be found in Teen Vogue, The Huffington Post, Yes! Magazine, Pacific Standard, The Appeal and numerous anthologies. Her movement photography is featured in the “Freedom and Resistance” exhibit of the DuSable Museum of African American History.
Shaken Baby Syndrome Has Been Largely Debunked. Courts Are Still Catching Up.


Katie Smith, whose murder conviction was based on what’s increasingly seen as junk science, is fighting for her freedom.
Truthout/TheAppeal
August 22, 2026

mstroz via Getty Images

By the time Mason Tucker Smith was 2 years old, his mother, Mary Katherine Smith, had taken him to the doctor dozens of times.

Tucker had frequent ear infections, high fevers, and episodes of vomiting. On at least six occasions, he had seizures, but the doctors repeatedly reassured his mother, who goes by Katie, that these were benign “breath-holding spells” that would resolve on their own.

On the day of his collapse, July 30, 2014, Tucker had another seizure while Katie’s housemate, Jeremy Kitchens, was watching him in their bedroom and Katie was making dinner, according to her statement to the police.

As she approached the bedroom door, she heard a “thud.” Katie entered the room and Kitchens told her that Tucker was having another “episode.” Katie told police that she found Tucker unconscious on the ground. Believing that this was another breath-holding episode, she picked him up and put him on the bed. She left him in Kitchens’s care while she drove her daughter to meet a friend. While she was gone, Tucker vomited.

She returned to the house about 20 minutes later and checked Tucker’s oxygen level. When it began to drop, she called 911 and attempted to resuscitate him.

At the hospital, a physician concluded Tucker had been shaken. He was declared dead on August 2 and Katie was charged with his murder.

Two years later, Katie went to trial in Richmond County, Georgia, and was found guilty. The judge sentenced her to life in prison.

Shaken baby syndrome (SBS), also known as abusive head trauma (AHT), has been largely debunked, with one New Jersey judge calling it “akin to ‘junk science.’” While some courts have started to take a more critical look at SBS/AHT cases, prosecutions have continued and many people are still fighting their convictions.

The so-called triad of symptoms associated with SBS/AHT — bleeding around the eyes, bleeding between the skull and brain, and brain swelling — can be caused by strokes, short-distance falls, seizures, and disease, among other things.

Katie’s attorneys with the Southern Center for Human Rights say their investigation has revealed that she was convicted of a crime that never occurred.

Experts retained by her legal team — a neurologist and a forensic pathologist — have concluded that Tucker died of undiagnosed epilepsy, which was caused by an undetected arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in his brain. AVM is a life-threatening condition that typically develops in utero, in which a person has abnormally tangled blood vessels that disrupt blood flow, deprive tissue of oxygen, and face risk of rupture.

Forty-four people have been exonerated in SBS/AHT cases, according to the National Registry of Exonerations.

Katie’s attorneys have filed a motion for a new trial and, on August 24, they will present their new evidence before the Superior Court of Richmond County. The Augusta District Attorney’s Office is opposing Katie’s petition. The office did not respond to emails or calls seeking comment.

“Tucker’s death was a tragedy, not a crime,” Katie’s lawyers wrote in their motion. “Tucker was sick from birth, and was living with an undiagnosed and untreated deadly brain condition.”
Tucker’s Medical Records

Truthout reviewed Tucker’s medical records, which total about 278 pages. They reveal that Katie took him to the pediatrician more than 25 times, in addition to visits to specialists and the emergency room.

The physicians reassured Katie that Tucker was a healthy child. They told her that when he became upset he held his breath until he passed out, but that this was nothing to be concerned about.

Tucker’s first witnessed seizure occurred at daycare when he was five months old. Katie picked him up from daycare and took him to the pediatrician.

“Patient was reported to have had eyes roll back and lose consciousness while eating baby food in a highchair (sort of slumped),” the doctor wrote.

The pediatrician sent him to the hospital for an overnight observation. During the observation, Tucker “ate and slept well,” according to the medical records. Katie told the doctor that Tucker’s father, who had died shortly after Tucker’s death, and nephew each had experienced one seizure. The report does not recommend any further evaluation.

After his second seizure, which also occurred at daycare, his pediatrician referred him for an electroencephalogram (EEG), which measures electrical activity in the brain. The EEG report states that it was normal.

In her affidavit to the court, defense expert Heather Ravvin McKee, a neurologist who specializes in epilepsy, says research shows that “a single routine EEG only has an approximately 29-55 percent chance” of showing abnormal brain waves.

Despite the results of the EEG, Tucker should have been treated for epilepsy after the second seizure at the latest, she wrote.

Tucker had another seizure a few months later in March of 2013. Then, on July 20, 2013, when Tucker was 15 months old, he experienced a seizure that lasted between 15 and 20 minutes. He was still seizing when he and Katie arrived at the hospital, according to his medical records.

Notes from the hospital state that he “was bedridden” because he “could not rise from the bed without assistance, could not ambulate, and could not sit in a chair or wheelchair without support restraints.” Yet, he was discharged the next day. Katie was instructed to make a follow-up appointment with Tucker’s pediatrician.

Less than two weeks later, Katie took Tucker to see a pediatric neurologist. His report is riddled with errors. He wrote that Tucker was born full-term (he was premature) and that he had never been hospitalized, although he had been admitted to the neurologist’s own institution just 11 days earlier.

He diagnosed Tucker with breath-holding episodes and told Katie that Tucker would grow out of them. “I do not think these are seizures or epilepsy,” he wrote in his report.

On July 23, 2014, a week before Tucker’s final collapse, Katie and Tucker returned to the pediatrician. Tucker had been vomiting, was nauseous, and was experiencing headaches. The doctor told Katie to keep him hydrated. However, this may have been a sign that something more serious was at play. Vomiting can occur as part of a seizure, following a seizure, or can be a sign of increased pressure in the brain, according to neurologist McKee, the defense expert.
The Prosecution’s Case

Misogyny and junk science collided at Katie’s trial. Katie was a single parent working as a hospice nurse. Her husband, Tucker’s father, died by suicide when Tucker was just two months old. After his death, Katie and her children moved in with Kitchens, a friend from high school.

At trial, prosecutors portrayed Katie as an uncaring mother who neglected Tucker’s medical needs and prioritized her friendship with Kitchens over her children. Katie did not take the stand.

Vilifying mothers is a common prosecutorial tactic in cases where women are accused of crimes that likely never occurred, according to Valena Beety, author of Pink Crime: Fighting Against the Criminalization of Motherhood, Pregnancy, and Queer Identity.

“The woman is wrongly convicted based on that confluence of [false] forensic evidence and gender bias,” Beety recently told The Appeal.

Katie and Tucker Smith on August 12, 2012.Provided by the Southern Center for Human Rights

Kitchens testified for the prosecution and relayed essentially the same account that Katie had provided to the police. The prosecutor asked Kitchens if he had not killed Tucker, who did? Kitchens replied, “I guess Katie did … She was the only other one there.” On cross-examination, the defense accused Kitchens of killing Tucker.

Emergency personnel testified that Katie was “unnaturally calm” when they arrived.

“We’ve had kids locked in cars on cool days and the parents were much more emotional about the situation than that day,” a sergeant with the fire department told the jury.

Prosecutors and police often make assumptions about how a person should respond to a crisis. Among wrongful convictions, there are numerous examples of law enforcement presuming that too much or too little emotion was indicative of an innocent person’s guilt.

Katie’s attorney, Mark Loudon-Brown, noted in a phone interview with Truthout that Katie was a nurse who is trained to remain calm in crises.

The centerpiece of the prosecution’s case was the testimony of two medical experts who told the jury that Tucker had been shaken.

Mary Lynn Sheram, the hospital physician who first diagnosed Tucker with SBS/AHT, testified that Tucker’s symptoms are “shown in the literature to be 100 percent as non-accidental trauma.” The bleeding around his eyes “makes it a hallmark for abusive head injury.”

Nearly identical statements have been made in numerous SBS/AHT cases that have resulted in exonerations.

Timothy Gonzalez was convicted in an SBS case in 2016, the same year as Katie’s conviction, and was exonerated earlier this year. At his trial, a child abuse pediatrician testified that there was no “accidental explanation” and no “medical explanation” for his daughter’s injuries. In 2022, the court tossed out his conviction. At his retrial earlier this year, his attorneys presented evidence that Gonzalez’s daughter had suffered from a respiratory infection that led to encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain, which then developed into sepsis. On March 11, the jury acquitted Gonzalez of all charges.

The second medical expert for the prosecution in Katie’s case was Lora Darrisaw, the director of pediatric forensic pathology at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

“[W]e have no plausible accidental event that would account for the findings that I had,” she told the jury.

Several years before Katie’s trial, Darrisaw was the star witness in the murder trial of two Georgia parents, Ashley and Albert Debelbot, who were accused of killing their three-day-old newborn. She ruled the death a homicide by blunt force trauma. In 2021, the parents were exonerated after their attorneys uncovered evidence that their baby had been born with abnormalities in the brain which led to her death.
Openings for Exoneration

The medical community’s understanding of SBS/AHT has changed significantly in the years since Tucker’s death. Since 2014, 27 people convicted in SBS/AHT cases have been exonerated, according to the National Registry of Exonerations.

Last year, in a first-of-its-kind decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court banned testimony on SBS from the state’s courtrooms. In July, in another Georgia case, Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Kimberly A. Gallant granted Danyel Smith’s request for a new trial, noting SBS/AHT is no longer treated as a “presumptive diagnosis,” and that “current medical and scientific standards” require providers to consider “alternative, non-abusive causes before concluding abuse.” (Danyel is also represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights. He and Katie are not related.)

“Today, the diagnostic approach is different,” Katie’s attorney, Loudon-Brown, told Truthout. “You might keep the idea of non-accidental trauma in your head, but you would have to go further. You would have to look at what’s going on with Tucker.”


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

Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg
Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg is an independent journalist and founder of The Carceral Report. Follow her on Bluesky @elizabethweill.bsky.social and Instagram @elizabethweillgreenberg.
Trump deals deathblow to 100-year-old manufacturer


U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he speaks to the media before boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, U.S., en route to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, August 21, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci
August 25, 2026 
ALTERNET

A Connecticut manufacturing company that has operated for more than a century is finally closing its doors after being sent over the edge by President Donald Trump’s economic policies.

Its longtime owner cites “soaring business expenses and tariffs as key reasons for the decision,” reports NBC Connecticut.

“Leed-Himmel Industries, a custom aluminum manufacturing company based in Hamden, has been winding down operations after decades of serving customers,” NBC CT reports. “The closure did not come as a surprise to owner Howard Goldfarb.”

When NBC Connecticut visited the plant in 2024, Goldfarb was already warning reporters that rising expenses were biting an expanding hunk out of his business and putting pressure on it.

"It could get to the point where I just say, 'It's not worth doing anymore. All we're doing is working to pay the electrical bill,'" he told NBC Connecticut at the time.

Two years later, that prediction became reality, with Goldfarb declaring that costs had climbed too high as he walked through a largely empty factory floor.

"If our costs were where they were, say, eight years ago, I wouldn't have shut it down," Goldfarb told reporters.

Goldfarb’s factory was not only a stable source of jobs but also a considerable spring of revenue. The business paid about $160,000 annually in local property taxes. But Goldfarb said health insurance for workers kept rising, as did insurance for buildings, vehicles, and workers' compensation. The company's power bill topped $500,000 despite reduced operations.

But Goldfarb said the final blow came from the White House.

"Tariffs was the final nail in the coffin, if you will," he said, adding that tariffs increased the cost of aluminum and other materials while forcing him to tie up more cash in inventory purchases before customers paid their invoices.

The Supreme Court has already rejected Trump’s tariffs, calling them illegal because they lacked congressional authorization. But the president has continued to levy them despite not receiving legislative approval.

“President Trump’s repeated attempts to impose tariffs have become an encapsulation of his second term,” wrote the Times Editorial Board. “They have hurt the American economy and his own popularity. They also range from legally dubious to blatantly illegal.”

Goldfarb had almost managed to salvage some jobs by selling the company to a European buyer, but he said the buyer backed out after Trump unilaterally declared war on Iran. He said he is still trying to find a buyer for the Hamden facility and hopes it will remain a manufacturing site rather than being converted to storage space.
‘Settle It’: Trump Personally Intervened to Force DOJ Deal With Reviled Concert Ticket Monopoly

“The president stopped by to check on the negotiations. How is this not settled yet? asked Trump,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “By the end of the meeting, it was.”


US President Donald Trump uses a cellphone aboard Marine One before it departs Leesburg Executive Airport in Leesburg, Virginia on April 24, 2025.
(Photo by Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Aug 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Reporting published over the weekend revealed that US President Donald Trump personally intervened to force a Justice Department settlement with Ticketmaster owner Live Nation, which faced a high-profile antitrust trial for abusing its market power and illegally crushing competition.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the Justice Department, which sued Live Nation in 2024 during former President Joe Biden’s administration, was “preparing to wage a legal battle more than a decade in the making against the world’s largest concert promoter. Then President Trump called.” A senior DOJ official relayed to associates that the president told them to “settle it.”

Trump’s intervention reportedly came just days before the March 2 trial began in the antitrust case, the product of a yearslong investigation into the ticketing and concert behemoth. The Justice Department formally announced the settlement on March 9; the DOJ antitrust division’s counsel in the case appeared to be unaware of the deal until he appeared in court for trial.

According to the Journal, Trump’s instruction to the DOJ to settle the Live Nation case came shortly after the president met with the company’s CEO, Michael Rapino, in the Oval Office in late February.

“Trump had called the meeting to discuss how to improve bookings at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, according to people familiar with the conversation,” the Journal reported. “He also wanted to know why the company hadn’t reached a deal over its lawsuit.”

“On March 5, Rapino was back at the White House, meeting White House Counsel David Warrington and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to put the finishing touches on a deal. He was accompanied by Sullivan & Cromwell’s James McDonald, who had little antitrust experience but had been representing Trump in two New York appeals,” the newspaper added. “The president stopped by to check on the negotiations. How is this not settled yet? asked Trump... By the end of the meeting, it was.”

Since the start of Trump’s second White House term, the Justice Department has repeatedly settled cases against corporations accused of violating the nation’s antitrust laws. MS NOW reported last month that “DOJ staff have privately complained that the Trump administration is essentially deciding not to enforce antitrust laws that are critical to keeping companies from becoming single-source providers and being able to charge enormous sums for their product or service.”

The Biden Justice Department’s 2024 antitrust suit against Live Nation accused the company of depriving music fans in the US of “ticketing innovation” and forcing them to “use outdated technology while paying more for tickets than fans in other countries.”

The Journal reported Sunday that most of the states that joined the antitrust action against Live Nation, “including those controlled by Republicans, viewed the settlement as so favorable to the company that they refused to join it and continued to trial.”

“In April, a jury found Live Nation illegally monopolized the ticketing market for major concerts in the US,” the Journal noted. “The plaintiff states have asked the judge to break up the company.”
GRIFT

Trump Raked In Up to $15.5 Million From Fossil Fuel Stocks as His War Pushed Up Gas Prices

“President Trump continues to get richer from an illegal war that he started and refuses to resolve, while Americans pay the price for his actions,” said US Sen. Maggie Hassan.


US President Donald Trump waves the green flag to start the race during the Freedom 250 Grand Prix Race on the streets of Washington, DC, on August 23, 2026.
(Photo by Doug Mills/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Aug 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A report released Monday by Democrats on the US Congressional Joint Economic Committee estimates that President Donald Trump has made millions of dollars from his own illegal war with Iran.

According to the report, Trump’s wealth has increased by as much as $15.5 million since January thanks to his investments in oil and gas stocks, which have surged since the president unlawfully attacked Iran without congressional approval earlier this year.

In examining the fossil fuels stocks owned by the president—including shares in Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum—the report finds that their value has increased by an average of 39% since the start of the year.

JEC’s analysis also notes that Trump bought an additional $3.6 million in oil and gas stocks in the first quarter of 2026, allowing him to further cash in on the war he started.

While the war has driven up the values of fossil fuel companies, it has also hit US consumers directly in their wallets by raising the price of oil, diesel fuel, and gasoline.

In total, the report estimates that “Americans have now spent an additional $71.5 billion on gas since the start of Trump’s Iran War, an average of $604 in added costs per family.”

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the JEC, contrasted the president getting $15 million richer from his own war with Americans struggling to make ends meet.

“President Trump continues to get richer from an illegal war that he started and refuses to resolve, while Americans pay the price for his actions,” Hassan said. “On the campaign trail, Trump promised giveaways for Big Oil and relief for working families, but he can’t deliver both. Since launching his war with Iran, Trump has made clear that he puts his own financial interests—and those of his biggest bankrollers—ahead of Americans who are burdened with higher costs for gas and everyday essentials under this administration.”

During the 2024 presidential election, Trump repeatedly claimed that he would bring down costs for US consumers starting on the very first day of his presidency.

Prices have only continued to rise during his term, however, and the president has since dismissed concerns about affordability as a “hoax” concocted by the Democratic Party.
Nearly 100 Groups Urge Congress to Reject GOP-Led Attacks on Clean Air Protections

If lawmakers pass four Congressional Review Act resolutions, the coalition warns, “families will experience consequences,” from further strained household budgets to breathing toxic air.



A traffic jam occurs on Interstate 95 in Miami, Florida.
(Photo by Wikimedia Commons)

Jessica Corbett
Aug 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Dozens of organizations focused on consumer advocacy, the environment, health, science, and more came together on Monday for a letter urging the Republican-controlled US Congress to vote down four resolutions attacking clean air protections.

Signed by 95 groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Progressives for Democracy in America, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, the letter takes aim at four resolutions recently introduced by Republicans under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

The CRA allows lawmakers to overturn rules and regulations issued by federal agencies—and has already been used by Big Oil-backed President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress to roll back policies aimed at limiting pollution.

After Trump returned to power last year, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transmitted to Congress three emission waivers that the Biden administration granted to California, which led to CRA resolutions that lawmakers passed and the president signed—measures condemned at the time as his “latest betrayal of democracy” and a gift to polluters.

This past June, the Trump EPA announced that it was submitting four more to Congress, resulting in new resolutions that, as the letter notes, “seek to overturn four long-standing Clean Air Act preemption waivers that states rely on to protect the health and safety of their residents (HJRes. 202/SJRes 206, HJRes. 205/SJRes. 207, HJRes. 211/SJRes. 208, HJRes. 214/SJRes. 205).”

As the letter details, these resolutions target waivers for:Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles that the auto industry has already been complying with since 2009;
Smog-forming pollutant and GHG emissions limits for light-duty vehicles that the auto industry has already been complying with since 2015 (Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) program);
The 2022 reinstatement of the 2013 ACC I waiver (after the EPA unlawfully purported to withdraw it in 2019); and
The Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) amendments, which set exhaust standards for garden equipment and other polluting small engines in California (and cannot be adopted by other states).

These waivers “are essential for saving families money and protecting air quality,” and “given the affordability crisis facing millions of people today, it would be a disastrous waste of time and resources to attempt to nullify” them, the letter argues. “Vehicles and off-road engines currently in use already meet the standards that Congress is attacking—and these standards mean that our cars, trucks, and off-road engines cost less at the gas pump and that our air is cleaner. There’s nothing to fix.”

While votes for the resolutions are not yet planned, the coalition warned that “if Congress attempts to improperly block the implementation of these long-established state standards, families will experience consequences,” from breathing toxic air to further straining household budgets as “gas prices are skyrocketing” thanks to Trump’s illegal war on Iran.

Already, “more than 152 million people live in counties with unhealthy levels of ozone or particulate pollution,” the groups noted, citing the American Lung Association (ALA). “Smogforming pollution from combustion cars, trucks, lawn mowers, and leaf blowers can worsen asthma, decrease lung function, and lead to premature death, particularly in children and the elderly.”

“Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from transportation is singlehandedly responsible for up to 20,000 premature deaths each year,” they continued. “All of these burdens disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income communities who are more likely to live near major trucking routes and transportation hubs.”

Pointing to the ALA’s 2025 and 2026 reports that “document a stark reversal forcing more people to live in counties graded ‘F’ for ozone pollution,” the letter stresses that “the waivers are more essential than ever. These improper CRA resolutions threaten the ability of states to take action to protect their residents from harmful air pollution and its negative public health impacts.”
Trump Envoy Tom Barrack in Hot Seat for Admitting Israeli Occupation of Golan Heights

Barrack’s comments—since retracted amid Republican calls for his resignation—directly contradicted the president’s recognition of Israel’s illegal occupation of Syrian territory conquered in 1967.



US Special Envoy Tom Barrack (left) speaks with Syrian Foreign Minister Assad al-Shaibani in Ankara, Türkiye on April 9, 2026.
(Photo by Tom Barrack/X)


Brett Wilkins
Aug 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Türkiye and special presidential envoy for Syria and Iraq, on Sunday retracted his acknowledgment of Israel’s illegal occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights amid mounting Republican calls for his resignation.

Directly contradicting Trump’s formal recognition of Israel’s unlawful 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights, Barrack said during a Friday interview with podcaster Mario Nawfal that Israel would face difficulties if it moved to unlawfully annex parts of southern Lebanon it invaded and currently occupies.
nate Dem Says Huckabee Must Step Down for Groveling to Israeli Government

“In the Golan with Syria, they still occupy the Golan against the [United Nations] resolutions, against all of the international order, which has said the Golan is Syria’s,” Barrack noted. He also floated the possibility that last week’s Israeli strike on an air base in northwestern Syria may have been an attempt at “baiting” Türkiye.

Israel invaded and captured the strategically important Golan Heights during the Six-Day War in 1967, ethnically cleansing more than 100,000 Syrians and eventually annexing the conquered territory, a move unanimously rejected by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 497. Since then, tens of thousands of Israeli settlers have unlawfully colonized the Syrian territory.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 demands that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights and all occupied Palestinian territories as well.

No country recognized Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights until US President Donald Trump did so during his first term. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed his appreciation for the move by naming one of the dozens of illegal Jewish settlements in the territory Trump Heights.

Barrack subsequently reversed himself, telling The Associated Press on Sunday that “United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged.”

This, as Israeli leaders denounced Barrack’s remarks and Republican politicians and pundits called for his firing or resignation.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said the ambassador’s comments were “full of inaccuracies” and “contradict the position of Trump himself regarding the Golan Heights.”

US Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said on X: “The Senate confirmed [Barrack] to enact the PRESIDENT’S AGENDA, which millions of Americans voted for. It seems the ambassador forgot that or failed to do his research, so here’s a refresher for him… President Trump has been CLEAR about Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights for years!”

Far-right provocateur and Trump confidant Laura Loomer called Barrack “absolutely brain dead.”

“Tom Barrack is hands down the most retarded ambassador nominated by President Trump,” she contended. “He should resign for his lack of understanding of US foreign policy.”

Meanwhile, some experts positively noted Barrack’s short-lived acknowledgment of what the international community has long maintained.




“[Barrack] said the Golan is occupied Syrian land under UN resolutions. That is simply what the UN says. It has said it since 1967. Most of the world agrees,” political analyst Michael Arizanti said on X.

“Israel’s foreign minister said his remarks were full of inaccuracies,” he continued. “Professional lunatic Laura Loomer demanded he resign and claimed he was compromised by Arab money, with no evidence at all! Sen. Rick Scott told him to do his research. And because Barrack had criticized Israel’s strike on a Syrian air base the week before, he was accused of siding with the bad guys.”

“Four attacks,” Arizanti added. “Not one about the actual policy!”
Legendary TV Comedy Writer Explains ‘Existential’ Threat of Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger

“We know what this merger will mean—one less buyer for our work, less demand for writing services, less leverage to negotiate deal terms that recognize our value, less creative latitude.”



An aerial view of the Paramount logo on the water tower at Paramount Studios on February 23, 2026 in Los Angeles, California.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)


Brad Reed
Aug 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Top TV comedy writer Michael Schur, co-creator of hit shows such as Parks and Rec and The Good Place, is sounding the alarm about the “existential” dangers of allowing the proposed $110 billion megamerger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery to go through.

In an op-ed published Monday in The Hollywood Reporter, Schur outlined the downsides of megamergers between major Hollywood studios, which he described as “bad for everyone except those at the very top” and “another potential broadsword blow to an already wounded industry, one that’s been gouged and squeezed and strangled by high-level corporate greed.”

Focusing on the challenges faced by writers, Schur wrote that people in his profession “felt the walls closing in” when they first heard news of Paramount’s proposed purchase of Warner Bros.

“We know what this merger will mean,” wrote Schur, “one less buyer for our work, less demand for writing services, less leverage to negotiate deal terms that recognize our value, less creative latitude... The impact will be concrete, measurable, and serious.”

Schur explained that writers and other workers in the entertainment industry personally understand how corporate consolidation affects their livelihoods.

“We don’t have to theorize any of these outcomes,” Schur wrote. “Disney’s acquisition of 21st Century Fox in 2019 put them all on full display. After the merger, Fox’s television development operation was folded into Disney’s. Their studio’s priorities continued, Fox’s did not. Writers who had built relationships at Fox found themselves adrift... More than 4,000 Fox employees lost their jobs.”

Schur concluded by encouraging opponents to the merger to “fight tooth and nail to sustain what is left of our struggling—but still breathing—creative industry” before it gets fully monopolized.

The combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. has long been controversial because it would put control of CBS, CNN, HBO, TikTok, and other major media properties all under the control of David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump.

The merger has been placed on hold amid multiple lawsuits seeking to block it, including one filed by 12 Democratic state attorneys general.

The New York Times reported on Monday that California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office has been leading the state AGs’ antitrust complaint against the deal, called off a meeting that had been scheduled with Paramount executives to discuss a potential settlement.

In a statement, Bonta accused Paramount of leaking misleading information about settlement discussions between the parties, which he said demonstrated “a lack of good faith.”

“As soon as Paramount stops playing games and engages sincerely,” Bonta said, “my office is happy to meet again.”