You Could Be Next: Trump’s Gestapo Tactics Are Getting Worse

Wake up, America. You’re living in a nightmare.


Protestors and ICE agents near the area where Renee Good was killed by a federal immigration agent the previous week, in Minneapolis, Minn., on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026.
(Photo by Elizabeth Flores/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Robert Reich
Aug 29, 2026

Inequality Media

Imagine living in a country that can arrest and imprison you whenever it wants, without any judge or jury deciding you did anything wrong. It can call you a “domestic terrorist” and put you in prison for life. It can even execute you on the basis of nothing more than its own decision that you’re dangerous.

Well, I have bad news for you. You’re living in that country right now.




As he loses power and popularity — and faces mounting resistance abroad and at home — Trump is enlarging his police state.

His regime is having ever more people arrested, imprisoned, and deported without any judge or jury deciding they did anything wrong. It’s using racial profiling in deciding whom to target. It’s making warrantless searches and seizures of people, their cars, and their homes. All of this violates the US Constitution.

Trump’s police state not only continues, but it is growing larger by the day.

According to a new analysis by The New York Times, the regime’s surge in immigration arrests this summer has swept up thousands of people, most of whom have not been charged with or convicted of a crime (less than 4 percent had a past violent criminal conviction).

Those being arrested, imprisoned, and potentially deported include some married to US citizens, others who entered the US legally and are pursuing asylum claims, and some who came here with temporary legal status that the Trump regime has decided to revoke.

In other words, they were all here legally.

If you have temporary protected status because you escaped from inhumane conditions in another country, ICE might now summon you to an ICE office and put a monitor around your ankle — even if you have no criminal history and are in full compliance with your immigration status. The Trump regime has unilaterally revoked temporary protected status and claims the ankle monitors are necessary to track people whom it may want to deport at some point.

You’re not even safe if you’re a US citizen born in America. ProPublica has found that more than 170 US citizens have been wrongfully detained by ICE agents in raids and protests over a recent nine-month span. It described cases involving alleged force and multiday detention without access to counsel or communication.

Some estimates put the number of US citizens subjected to ICE as much higher, but there’s no way of knowing because there’s no legal process for filtering out and protecting American citizens, just as there’s no legal process for protecting anyone else who’s here legally. Trump’s police state is extrajudicial, and it’s being done in secret.

You might even be murdered, without a trial finding you guilty of anything. In addition to Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota last January, ICE agents have murdered two others just this summer.

One was Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, murdered by ICE in Houston on July 7, 2026. Salgado Araujo had lived in the US for decades. ICE agents pursued him in unmarked cars and shot him while he was driving a work crew to a job site. The Department of Homeland Security claims Salgado Araujo tried to use his vehicle as a weapon against an officer, but witnesses dispute this account.

The other was Johan Sebastian Durán Guerrero, murdered by ICE on July 13, 2026, in Biddeford, Maine. Durán Guerrero was a 25-year-old immigrant from Colombia. Agents pursued him while he was driving to work. The Department of Homeland Security claims its agent feared for public safety as Durán Guerrero tried to drive away, but elected officials and family members dispute this account, noting that Durán Guerrero was not an intended target of the immigration operation.

None of these murders has been fully investigated.

You might also be murdered without a trial if you happen to be on a vessel off Latin America’s Caribbean coast or in the eastern Pacific Ocean. A mere accusation of drug trafficking is enough to kill you, without any evidence presented before any court of law or neutral magistrate.

Historians looking back on this shameful period will wonder how this was allowed.

The US military announced Monday that it had again carried out a strike on a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing two people it accused of trafficking drugs — bringing the overall death toll to 223 people killed in 67 strikes during the nearly yearlong US campaign of bombing boats alleged to be smuggling drugs.

Finally, the Trump regime is imprisoning Americans who demonstrate against its police state.

In June, in two federal courts sentenced nine people who protested outside an immigrant detention facility in Texas to 30 to 100 years in prison, after the regime accused them of being members of Antifa. During the protest, a police officer was shot; he survived.

Those sentences are longer than the harshest sentence handed down to any of the convicted rioters in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol in 2021 (all of whom have since received pardons or commutations from Trump).

These cases are the first to incorporate new guidance from the regime that classifies Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” That’s despite the fact that Antifa is a decentralized movement rather than a single organization and that there is no federal charge of domestic terrorism under existing US law.

I want to make three concluding points about all this.

First, Trump’s police state not only continues, but it is growing larger by the day. Kristi Noem’s replacement as secretary of homeland security, Markwayne Mullin, along with his boss in the White House, Stephen Miller, and the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, have more money, manpower, and firepower than ever. They are ramping up all of their extrajudicial arrests, detentions, deportations, and murders.

The only difference between last year and now is they’re no longer announcing what they’re doing with fanfare and braggadocio, because the American public has grown wary of it.

Second, none of us is safe from this because the arrests, installations of ankle bracelets, imprisonments, deportations, and murders are made without any judge, jury, or neutral party deciding that the assumptions on which they’re based are adequate and truthful.

Not even “domestic terrorism” arrests and lengthy prison sentences necessitate judicial inquiry into what exactly is meant by “domestic terrorism” and whether defendants have done anything to justify that appellation.

Finally, this growing menace is cruel, inhumane, and likely unconstitutional. It is causing hundreds of thousands of families in our country extreme mental distress; many people are not leaving their homes for fear of being arrested or worse. It is likely chilling First Amendment rights to speak up and protest against these atrocities.

Historians looking back on this shameful period will wonder how this was allowed. How can one maniacal man in the Oval Office, his fanatical assistant, and two suck-up Cabinet secretaries have been so cruel and oblivious to basic human rights? How can their Republican enablers in Congress have been willing to go along? How can the American public have been so quiet?


© 2025 Robert Reich

Robert Reich
Robert Reich is professor emeritus of public policy at Berkeley and former US secretary of labor. His latest book is the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Coming Up Short."
Full Bio >

 

Is Spain facing another major earthquake? A geologist tells Euronews about the risks

By Lucia Blasco

Published on 27/08/2026 - EURONEWS

Euronews talks to a geologist from the Geological and Mining Institute of Spain about the real danger, the areas most at risk and what science can – and cannot – predict.

More than 1,000 earthquakes in just 10 days, two of them of magnitude 4.8. The seismic sequence that began on 14 August in Granada has once again raised a question that goes far beyond Andalusia: could Spain soon be hit by a major earthquake?

By 24 August, the National Geographic Institute (IGN) had recorded 1,075 tremors which were felt by the population. The two largest, with a magnitude of 4.8, were very shallow and were felt in more than 500 localities, from Andalusia to parts of Murcia, Castilla-La Mancha and even the Madrid region.

Spain has far more destructive precedents. The Arenas del Rey earthquake of 1884, with an estimated magnitude of 6.5, affected more than 100 population centres and left between 750 and 900 people dead. In 1954, Dúrcal recorded a magnitude-7.8 quake, but at a depth of around 650 kilometres, which greatly limited its effects at the surface.

Does this mean Spain should brace for another major earthquake?

"The occurrence of earthquakes with a magnitude above 4 in the south and southeast of Spain is nothing unusual," emergency geologist Raúl Pérez López of the Spanish Geological and Mining Institute (IGME-CSIC) tells Euronews.

In this area there are faults capable of generating magnitude-5 and, in some cases, magnitude-6 earthquakes.

So what is the real risk of a major earthquake in Spain, which areas are most exposed, and how far in advance can we anticipate it?

Related

• EU sends €2 million to Colombia after deadly earthquake
• Basic tips on what to do in an earthquake

140 years without a major earthquake: A ticking clock?

Some of the recent warnings have focused on the roughly 140 years that have passed since the 1884 earthquake. Pérez López adds a key nuance: a statistical average does not allow us to predict the next earthquake.

"We can divide the elapsed time by the number of earthquakes and say: every 100 years Spain experiences a major earthquake, because that is what the statistics tell us," he explains. But seismic activity does not behave in a linear fashion: 200 years may pass without a major earthquake and then two may occur in quick succession.

"Even though we have gone 140 years without an earthquake, we do not know whether it is going to happen soon or in a long time", he points out.

What does happen is that tectonic energy continues to build up. Spain is subjected to the push of the African and Eurasian plates and, the more time passes, the probability of a major earthquake may increase. But that does not mean it is imminent.

"There are faults that can trigger earthquakes, but we do not know whether it will be today, tomorrow or in 50 years' time", Pérez López sums up. "We have no way of knowing."

The expert also warns of the false perception that can be created by the coincidence of several earthquakes in different parts of the world. Pérez López explains that the large tremors recently recorded in various countries may lead people to think there is some connection between them, but "from a scientific point of view that is not the case."

More than 200 faults: Risk is not confined to Granada

According to Pérez López, the IGME has mapped more than 200 active faults in Spain. The big unknown is where and when the accumulated energy will eventually be released: "How is that energy going to be distributed or released across all the existing faults? We do not know."

The highest level of risk is concentrated along the Mediterranean coast, "from Valencia to Cadiz," because of the presence of faults and a history of destructive earthquakes. But the expert points out that significant tremors can also occur in the Pyrenees, the Catalan ranges and on intraplate faults found, for example, around Granada and Albacete.

History shows that major Spanish earthquakes are not confined to a single province either: Torrevieja suffered an estimated magnitude-6.6 tremor in 1829, and the Lorca earthquake of 2011, much smaller at magnitude 5.1, left nine people dead.

Prince Felipe of Spain and Princess Letizia visit the church of Santiago, destroyed by the earthquake in Lorca, Spain, on Friday 13 May 2011. Copyright 2011 AP. All rights reserved.

Preventing what we cannot predict

"Our best tool is prevention, without any doubt", says Pérez López. The danger posed by an earthquake depends not only on its magnitude, but also on where it occurs, its depth and, above all, on how buildings respond.

"What kills people in earthquakes is the seismic intensity and the response of buildings", he explains. That is why, even though it is not possible to predict the next tremor, hazard maps make it possible to estimate in the long term how much the ground may move and to adapt building practices to that level of risk.

The geologist cites the recent earthquakes in Venezuela and Colombia to illustrate how tremors of similar magnitude can have very different consequences. While he notes that the geological characteristics were not the same, he highlights the role played by the strength of buildings in explaining their impact.

Predicting earthquakes remains one of the major scientific challenges. Pérez López points out that scientists still do not know exactly what determines the moment when a fault ruptures, how an earthquake begins or how that rupture will spread.

The expert himself acknowledges the paradox that, despite huge scientific and technological advances, we are still unable to predict earthquakes. This shows that "nature has a degree of complexity that we do not yet understand": researchers still do not know exactly what triggers a tremor, when the rupture threshold is reached or how it will propagate.

Artificial intelligence and 'deep learning' could in future help to identify patterns that we do not currently see, he says. But Pérez López believes there is still a long way to go: more exhaustive monitoring of faults could one day make it possible to develop some form of forecasting. "But for now, we are completely in the dark."

 

Using FDA addiction science, researcher asks: Do salty, high-fat foods act like drugs?

University of Kansas

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

LAWRENCE — University of Kansas researcher Tera Fazzino is investigating whether “hyperpalatable” foods marketed to Americans — foods formulated with artificially high amounts of fat, salt and carbohydrates — have traits commonly associated with addictive substances. She recently earned a $2.8 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to test the idea using experimental practices standard in the field of regulatory research.

“We’re using methodology that has already been established in the areas of tobacco and drug regulatory science and is required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for any testing of nicotine or other tobacco or pharmaceutical products that enter the market,” said Fazzino, associate professor of psychology at KU and director of the Life Span Institute’s Cofrin Logan Center for Addiction Research & Treatment. “We're using methodology that’s already been established with known substances and addictive drugs and is used for screening and surveillance and regulatory efforts. We're applying it to testing the addictive properties of these foods.”

Fazzino and her colleagues will recruit around 168 participants, then provide them with different “potato chip” food stimuli produced in coordination with the Food Innovation Accelerator program at Kansas State University-Olathe. The food stimuli will differ in their formulations, and their formulations won't be known by participants.

“In the lab, they will sample a chip food stimulus,” Fazzino said. “Then they'll answer some questions about what they think about the chips, how much they like them and then complete some behavioral tasks.”

These tasks will help measure the chips’ “reinforcing effects,” said the KU researcher.

“One will be a self-administration task where they will earn chips to eat,” she said. “We chose chips because this type of savory, salty, carb- and/or fat-heavy food is very characteristic of the U.S. food environment. It’s a kind of a nice, initial food stimulus to use that would have pretty broad applicability to the entire food supply.”

The chip study is based on long-established methodology used by FDA regulators to assess “abuse liability,” which the agency defines as “the potential of a substance to result in addiction and be used repeatedly or even sporadically resulting in undesirable effects.”

“Typical abuse-liability paradigms test the addictive properties of a substance by designing an experiment called an acute dose-response paradigm, where they test different concentrations of the drug,” Fazzino said. “The main comparison is what's called a negative control, which has none of the reinforcing characteristics of the substance being tested. So, for example, if we were testing the addictive properties of vaping products for nicotine, the negative control there would be just vapor without the nicotine in it. We’ve designed our paradigm accordingly, and this acute dose-response paradigm is the gold standard for testing the addictive properties of substances.”

Results could help identify specific ingredients or ingredient combinations that boost a food’s reinforcing properties.

“These foods contain combinations of nutrients, such as fat and sodium or carbohydrates and sodium, at levels that are uncommon in nature,” Fazzino said. “If you remove one of those key nutrients, the food should become less reinforcing.”

The KU researcher said her findings might inform regulators and policymakers, not just fellow scholars.

“The grant was written in a way that we could be able to provide direct evidence to the FDA about the abuse liability of these food stimuli, with the intention of informing potential regulatory action,” she said.

Fazzino recently published findings into how the tobacco industry used practices from cigarette sales to formulate and market hyperpalatable foods in the U.S. and globally in the 1980s and 1990s, with a legacy of negative consequences public health. She said she hopes her new research could spur U.S. policymakers, who she said lag behind regulators in other parts of the world.

“South America is leading the way,” Fazzino said. “Countries like Colombia and Chile have been very proactive in enacting regulatory action to protect their populations from these foods and to prevent these foods from taking over their food supplies. That’s included bans on marketing, especially to children. That has also included really strong, very clear black warning labels with white letters indicating this is ultra-processed or this is unhealthy in some way, and taxation on certain products.”

The NIH grant will enable hiring of a postdoctoral researcher dedicated to the project, fund work by graduate students, and give research and training opportunities to KU undergraduates.

“It's funding not only the study, but student trainees,” Fazzino said. “We have a new postdoc who just joined us. We have research coordinators who will all get state-of-the-art training and experience working on this study. This is really on the forefront of addiction science.”

 

Biocultural Minga: Chile and Colombia forge a new path for south-south cooperation on biodiversity

How can science and communities work together to tackle the biodiversity crisis? Chile and Colombia are forging a new model of south-south cooperation to drive socioecological solutions with global impact.

Instituto de Ecologia y Biodiversidad

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBluesky
Email

 

image: 

Participants from the Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB) and the Humboldt Institute during the Biocultural Minga at the Senda Darwin Biological Station in Chiloé, Chile.

view more 

Credit: Xuksa Kramcsak / Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB)

These were the questions that brought together Chile’s Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB) and Colombia’s Humboldt Institute, two of Latin America’s leading scientific institutions dedicated to biodiversity and sustainability research. At a time when the international community is seeking new responses to the climate and ecological crises, the two institutions are advancing an alliance that positions South-South cooperation as a strategic platform for co-producing knowledge, strengthening capacities, and developing innovative, place-based solutions.

Building on their experience working with communities, indigenous peoples, local governments, and civil society organizations, this collaboration seeks to build a Latin American model of socioecological research that integrates science, local knowledge, and collective action to address the environmental challenges of the 21st century.

During the last week of July, 17 participants—including members of the IEB associated with its Long-Term Socioecological Research Integration Program, representatives of Colombia’s Humboldt Institute, particularly its Center for Social Appropriation and Center for Socioecological Studies and Global Change, as well as local territorial stakeholders—took part in a series of working sessions at the Senda Darwin Biological Station in Chiloé, southern Chile.

The meeting aimed to advance the design of a collaborative model for socioecological research between Chile and Colombia, strengthening regional scientific cooperation and facilitating its implementation across different Latin American territories through knowledge co-production, the exchange of experiences, and joint work with local stakeholders.

Over three days, researchers, communities, and territorial stakeholders engaged in dialogue and reflection using an exchange matrix designed to guide discussions between the two institutes. The matrix posed strategic questions about the knowledge and methodologies to be shared, forms of collaboration, expected outcomes, and mutual learning.

The process placed particular emphasis on socioecological restoration, inter- and transdisciplinary research, the integration of local and Indigenous knowledge, territorial governance, knowledge co-production, biocultural heritage, and the development of a south-south cooperation agenda aimed at generating shared solutions to the socioenvironmental challenges currently facing Chile and Colombia.

Through presentations, discussion sessions, a visit to the territorial experience of the Catruman community and its sustainable watershed management model, and participatory workshops, participants identified shared principles, methodological approaches, and challenges for strengthening collaborative socioecological research. This work helped move the partnership from an exchange of experiences toward defining guidelines and agreements for launching pilot joint-research initiatives and consolidating a collaborative model between the two countries.

The meeting was held within the framework of the Collaboration Agreement signed by the IEB and the Humboldt Institute in October 2025, whose purpose is to strengthen biodiversity research, conservation, and knowledge management in Latin America.

Commitments Moving Forward

As a result of the meeting, the participating institutions and territorial organizations agreed to consolidate an alliance based on the principles of biocultural diversity, reciprocity with nature, and recognition of territories as living spaces for learning and collaboration.

Within this framework, they committed to strengthening and systematizing experiences of joint work among science, communities, and local governments; creating the Biocultural Minga community of practice to promote the exchange of methodologies, capacity building, and the development of collaborative projects; developing a pathway for policy impact to help incorporate these experiences into planning instruments and public policies; promoting, over the longer term, a Latin American exchange school focused on biocultural diversity and socioecological restoration; and developing a Chiloé Manifesto as an expression of their ethical and strategic commitment to collaborative research and to strengthening relationships between people and nature.

 

IEB Positions Social Innovation as a Key Pillar of Knowledge Transfer

The working sessions were organized by the IEB’s integrative program, Long-Term Socioecological Research. In this context, IEB manager Fernando Valenzuela highlighted the value of bringing together researchers, professionals from the Humboldt Institute, and representatives of the territories where the IEB works to strengthen a shared vision of socioecological research.

“All the perspectives brought together here have helped us understand the importance of consolidating the work that has been carried out at the biological stations through the Long-Term Socioecological Research Integration Program. Both stations host highly relevant research activities and processes, with more than 20 and even 30 years of history, generating information and data on different ecosystems and their dynamics. However, we need to make much greater progress in incorporating the social dimension and in understanding how people who interact with these territories can, on the one hand, take ownership of scientific knowledge and, at the same time, convey and share local and traditional knowledge with the scientists carrying out this monitoring,” he said.

Paula Gatica, coordinator of the Long-Term Socioecological Research Integrative Program and organizer of the event, said the meeting demonstrated the value of collaboration among institutions.

“Sharing experiences, lessons learned, and challenges allows us to adapt and strengthen good practices, enhancing the socioecological approach of long-term research. In turn, this knowledge can be transferred and implemented across the different sites that make up the Chilean Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research Network (LTSER-Chile), strengthening the network and promoting research that is increasingly connected to the needs of local territories.”

Gatica added that one of the main lessons drawn from their Colombian colleagues is their experience in the social appropriation of knowledge and the development of participatory processes with territorial stakeholders.

“The mapping exercises carried out in Fray Jorge and Senda Darwin allowed us to identify these key stakeholders and understand their interests and needs. The Colombian experience can help us move from that diagnosis toward concrete actions and more lasting collaborations, strengthening territorial governance and integrating scientific knowledge with local knowledge.”

Building on this point, Valenzuela said one of the IEB’s goals is to consolidate socioecological efforts and approaches while incorporating these criteria into the way science itself is conducted from a socioecological perspective.

“This will allow us to improve the impact that science can have, not only on public policy, but also on productive sectors and in the territories where decisions are made.”

Along the same lines, Marcela Verdugo, director of the IEB’s Development and Technology and Knowledge Transfer Unit (UDTT), emphasized that the meeting encourages progress toward more collaborative models in which science does not simply reach territories but enters into dialogue with the knowledge, experiences, and capacities of the people who live there.

“Knowledge co-production creates opportunities to foster social innovation processes, generate solutions that are relevant to each context, and strengthen capacities that remain within the territories. The challenge now is to sustain these alliances and ensure that the lessons built together translate into concrete actions and impacts,” she said.

 

Reflecting Together to Expand Socioecological Impact

From the Humboldt Institute, Marcela Lozano, manager of the Center for Social Appropriation, highlighted the collaborative process and collective reflection.

“For us, it has been very inspiring to exchange the experiences we have had as institutes, because we often have too few opportunities to reflect on these dynamics, which allow us to strengthen our processes—especially those seeking to connect social processes with the scientific and biological research carried out by our institutions.”

Regarding the challenges of inter- and transdisciplinary research, which involves the active participation of communities and dialogue among different knowledge systems, she said it is important to “recognize other ways of seeing the world and understanding biodiversity, and to understand that local knowledge also enriches the scientific knowledge produced in the territories.”

Lozano noted that “we act as a mirror,” reflecting the realities of both countries, and that these situations must therefore be addressed ethically and responsibly while promoting equity. This space, she explained, not only allows participants to share the tensions that arise among different disciplines, but also to jointly build new ideas, proposals, and aspirations.

“It has been extremely valuable to discover that, despite our different contexts, we share concerns and common commitments regarding governance, socioenvironmental conflicts, and participatory socioecological restoration. Although our institutional trajectories are different, we are driven by people’s well-being and by the goal of building pathways toward sustainability,” she said.

Meanwhile, Omar Ruiz Nieto, a researcher at the Humboldt Institute and leader of the Governance and Conflict Transformation research line at the Center for Social Appropriation, highlighted the opportunity to learn about the water-management experience of the Catruman community and its example of community-led governance supported by the IEB, which provided participants with key elements for interaction, knowledge sharing, and exchange.

“I would highlight the constructive dialogue we have been developing to think about and conceptualize socioecological restoration—in other words, understanding how social dimensions are incorporated into restoration processes. This integrated perspective, bringing together the social and ecological dimensions, allows us to open up new avenues for analysis and action, including work alongside communities,” he said.

Ruiz Nieto also noted that each research process carried out at the IEB’s long-term study sites—Fray Jorge and Senda Darwin—provides an opportunity for the Humboldt Institute to rethink its own biodiversity monitoring processes and consider how it might move toward a long-term monitoring framework with a significant social component.

“I believe there are important opportunities for learning and joint development that we could pursue,” he said.

Mónica Ortiz, a recently appointed IEB researcher and academic at the University of Concepción, who facilitated the dialogue and working matrix between the two institutes, highlighted the action-research process and the synergy between the two countries.

“We had the opportunity to exchange experiences based on the recognition that ecosystems are deeply coupled with social systems, that communities are part of nature, and that this relationship must also be reflected in governance, in the management of socioenvironmental conflicts, and in the way we conduct research.”

From her perspective, Ortiz highlighted the inspiration provided by Chiloé and the concept of the minga, in which everyone contributes to building something together.

“We have the opportunity to share, co-create, and build a common path. This is extremely important in the context of regional cooperation and from the perspective that we are part of the Global South, at the frontiers of science,” she emphasized.

She also underscored the value of short-, medium-, and long-term collaboration deeply rooted in communities.

The challenge now is to consider how this collaborative model can also become a model for socioecological restoration, engagement with territories, and, eventually, influence on public policy at both the local and international levels.

“I am very excited about everything we have envisioned as a result of this meeting: new meetings, joint activities, the possibility of publishing a book, and participating in international biodiversity forums, while also recognizing the Humboldt Institute’s leadership in these processes,” Ortiz said.

 

Committed Voices and Leaders from Chiloé and Monkul

More than an academic exchange, this meeting demonstrates that new forms of south-south cooperation are emerging in Latin America to jointly address the global socioenvironmental crisis. In a context marked by profound fragmentation—between nature and culture, the natural and social sciences, and different knowledge systems—the experience in Chiloé shows that it is possible to build bridges between scientific research, local knowledge, and place-based action.

These alliances not only strengthen knowledge generation but also create opportunities to advance socioecological transitions aimed at peace, sustainability, and biodiversity conservation.

Among the places where the IEB has collaborated and established ties with territorial communities to advance biocultural conservation are the municipality of Ancud, near the Senda Darwin Biological Station, and Monkul, on the coast of Chile’s Araucanía Region. At both sites, work has focused on community well-being through a socioecological approach.

Juan Corrales, from the Municipality of Ancud, reflected on the importance of including local stakeholders in the design of research policies and in defining the objectives of research centers over the short, medium, and long term, noting that this gives scientific work greater meaning.

“Today we are living through a critical moment in human history, when it is essential to ask ourselves what we conduct research for, why we do it, where we want to go, and what gives meaning to our actions. And those answers can only be built by bringing together academia, institutions, and the local stakeholders who experience this reality every day—a reality that is dynamic, changing, and under constant tension,” he said.

Corrales also noted the importance of seeing how researchers have been able to recognize the value of their own work and of the fraternal experience of coming together, learning, and creating.

“There is a sense of self-worth that belongs not only to the territories, but also to those who produce knowledge, and that is something we must value. It is important to recognize the people at the heart of these stories, with their strengths, concerns, and challenges. Sharing these experiences, communicating them, and supporting them is essential, because addressing the multiple crises we face requires a joint and coordinated effort.”

Meanwhile, Estela Nahuelpán, a leader of the Mateo Nahuelpán Lafkenche community on the coast of the Carahue and a representative of Ekos de Monkul, also took part in the meeting and learned about the approaches being developed in both countries around socioenvironmental restoration. “I believe both teams have been building significant strengths, creating enormous potential for future joint work. I think it is extremely important to highlight the participation of local communities, different stakeholders and, above all, Indigenous Peoples in the territories of both countries. Their perspectives and ways of understanding the world can help enrich research projects, while these projects can, in turn, make a highly valuable contribution to the territories and their people,” she said.

Finally, this institutional collaboration takes on strategic importance given that the Humboldt Institute was designated as a Subregional Technical and Scientific Cooperation Support Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to support implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).

Together with the IEB—which receives funding from Chile’s National Agency for Research and Development (ANID)—the two institutions have consolidated a cooperation agenda aimed at promoting the generation and application of scientific knowledge, exchanging experiences, and strengthening capacities to respond to biodiversity conservation challenges across the region.

With extensive scientific experience and active participation in international advisory processes, both institutes contribute to assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), as well as to the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) of major environmental conventions.

This alliance demonstrates how scientific cooperation among countries of the Global South can become a driver of innovation, policy impact, and collective action, projecting collaborative solutions from Latin America to address the global challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change.

Trump's trade threats spiral out of control as Canada slaps down 100 pages of tariffs

David Edwards
August 25, 2026 

RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks with the news media after he suspended trade negotiations with the United States, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada August 22, 2026. REUTERS/Chris Tanouye/File Photo

President Donald Trump spent Tuesday morning threatening Canada online while Ottawa put a nearly 100-page tariff schedule on the calendar he cannot stop.

Four Canadian cabinet ministers announced the retaliatory tariffs in Ottawa on Tuesday, according to the New York Times. The duties cover about 700 American products and take effect Sept. 8.

The rates range from 15 to 50 percent, matching the level Washington set for each product, according to CNBC. Prime Minister Mark Carney had promised a "dollar for dollar" response after talks collapsed Friday night, the Times reported.

The schedule runs nearly 100 pages, Global News senior journalist Mackenzie Gray reported on X. It taxes fish, stoves, carpets, men's suits and fishing rods.

"Our preference was to find a deal that benefits both countries," Canadian trade minister Dominic LeBlanc told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Tuesday. "We still believe that's possible. But in the meantime, we're not waiting by the phone."

Trump answered on Truth Social, where he suggested halting business with Ontario and repeatedly floated renaming Lake Ontario to "Lake America," CNBC reported.

"I deal with many countries, and Canada is easily the most difficult and unreasonable," Trump wrote in one post.

Trump warned Monday that he would double tariffs on Canadian cars and auto parts to 50 percent, but not until Jan. 1, 2027, Global News reported. Canada's deadline is two weeks away.

Canada doubled its own tariffs on American steel and aluminum to 50 percent, the Times reported. Ottawa added $7.5 billion for businesses and workers harmed by the trade war, according to CNBC.

Senior Canadian officials said the list was not built to punish particular American businesses or states, but to help Canadian industry, Gray reported.

Trump has also complained that the United States runs a trade deficit with Canada. That gap exists largely because Americans buy Canadian crude oil, CNBC reported.

His tariffs have excluded oil, natural gas, potash and many minerals, according to the Times.

Polls taken before the tariffs took effect Saturday showed broad Canadian support for retaliation, the Times noted. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has pressed for it, while Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has urged restraint.

Canada's economy is about one-twelfth the size of the American economy, according to the Times, and economists say the resulting price increases will hurt Canadian companies, too.

‘Canada Must Respond’: Ottawa Slaps Retaliatory Tariffs on US Goods After Trump Trade War Escalation

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his nation is not “going to accept” an “attitude at the negotiation table that Canada is a subsidiary of the United States.”


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks about the trade dispute with the United States at the Davie Shipyard in Levis, Quebec, Canada on August 24, 2026.
(Photo by Andrej Ivanov/AFP via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Aug 25, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Canada announced Tuesday that it will impose roughly $20 billion in retaliatory tariffs on American imports in response to President Donald Trump’s 50% tariff on many of its goods after bilateral negotiations collapsed amid what Ottawa said were last-minute concessions that damaged the Canadian economy and intruded on its sovereignty.

The government of center-left Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said its countermeasures will cover roughly C$27.6 billion ($20 billion) worth of American products, with tariffs ranging from 15% to 50% on hundreds of categories including steel, aluminum, appliances, clothing, seafood, electronics, furniture, and dairy. The measures are scheduled to take effect September 8. Ottawa also unveiled billions of dollars in assistance for workers and businesses expected to be hurt by the conflict.


‘It’s War’: Trump’s 50% Tariffs Take Hold After US-Canada Trade Talks Collapse


“Canada must respond, and today we are, in a proportionate, targeted, and strategic way,” Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said during a press conference in Ottawa. “Today I’m announcing that Canada will match the United States tariffs dollar for dollar, rate for rate.”

“Canada’s counter-tariffs are designed primarily to provide protection for Canadian industry impacted by US tariffs and allow them to compete against US products in the Canadian market,” he added. “It’s all about fairness, it’s all about a level playing field, it’s all about supporting Canadian workers and Canadian businesses.”

It’s also apparently about political calculation ahead of November’s midterm elections, in which the congressional balance of power—and therefore Trump’s ability to pursue his agenda—is at stake.

The administration’s trade war with Canada is hitting industries concentrated in states where Republicans are fighting to defend vulnerable US Senate seats, including Maine’s lobster industry and Michigan’s auto sector, while Ohio and other Midwestern states face exposure via cross-border manufacturing and supply chains.

On Monday, Trump told Canadian leaders to “fall in line” or face “far WORSE” consequences than the new tariffs.

Carney retorted that Canadians are not “going to accept” an “attitude at the negotiation table that Canada is a subsidiary of the United States.”

Canadian anger toward Trump has surged as the US president has repeatedly threatened Canada’s sovereignty, including his frequent talk of making Canada the “51st state.” Canadian political leaders and labor organizations have largely rallied behind a tougher response, while a growing grassroots boycott of US products has become a symbol of national resistance.

“Canadians understand that maintaining our sovereignty and independence will entail consequences and sacrifices,” Calgary-based commentator Jen Gerson wrote Tuesday in The Guardian. “We did not bring this trade war on ourselves; we have merely refused to comply in advance to the unreasonable demands of a bad-faith actor. We will be punished for it. We have accepted this.”

“If nothing else, let the [United States’] retaliation be a warning to the rest of the Western alliance,” Gerson added. “Run, run. Protect yourselves. Move faster.”

Trump—the self-proclaimed “peace president” who has attacked more countries than any other US leader in modern history—has menaced a string of allies. He’s threatened to retake the Panama Canal, launch armed attacks on Colombia and Mexico, “bomb the shit” out of Oman, and take over Greenland.

Longtime US allies have taken notice—and action. Just as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine spooked Sweden and Finland into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Trump’s erratic aggression has pushed other countries in directions once thought highly unlikely. European Union membership for Iceland, long a politically moribund proposition, is now politically plausible amid developments including Trump’s Arctic saber-rattling. US tariff pressure on India is even incentivizing India to seek closer economic ties with China, a traditional adversary.

Trump’s increasingly aggressive and condescending rhetoric has left many Canadians feeling like their relationship with their southern neighbor has irreparably changed.

“America has changed, and... we will not return to our old relationship,” Carney said after Trump announced the 50% tariffs over the weekend.

“You’re at war when you get attacked,” the prime minister also said. “We got attacked.”

Such rhetoric was once the realm of comedy, like the 1995 satirical film Canadian Bacon, directed by Michael Moore and starring John Candy and Dan Aykroyd, about a struggling US president who manufactures a shooting war with Canada, invasion and all, in hopes of rallying Americans around a foreign enemy.

The premise was absurd because the notion of Washington deliberately provoking its peaceful northern neighbor into war seemed preposterous. Many critics have noted that under Trump, absurdity has become the new normal.

On Tuesday, Trump said he’s considering changing the name of Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” because, as one Bluesky account noted, “Trump likes to slap the name of America on everything.”



“Gulf of Mexico? Gulf of America. Strait of Hormuz? Strait of America. Lake Ontario? Lake America,” the account quipped, adding one more suggestion: “Epstein Island? America Island.”

Trump roasted as 'greatest idiot' in a lifetime after Lake Ontario threat: 'Out of ideas'

Alexander Willis
August 25, 2026 

RAW STORY

President Donald Trump floated the idea of changing the name of Lake Ontario to “Lake America” on Tuesday amid his ongoing trade feud with Canada, a pitch that was met with collective sighs by critics who spoke to their exhaustion with the chaotic Trump administration.

In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump claimed that his administration was “giving serious consideration” to the name change as he did not “expect to [be] doing much business with Ontario any longer.” The idea is similar to his executive order issued in early 2025 to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” a move that received intense scrutiny at the time.

Regarding Trump’s latest name-change idea — one that came amid Trump imposing 50% tariffs on some Canadian goods, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney vowing to match said tariffs “dollar for dollar” — critics were quick to condemn it.

The Bulwark's Sam Stein quipped on X, "He's out of ideas."

Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO at The Dispatch, mocked, "It's still astonishing - ten years into the Trump era - that our president so often behaves like a 10 year-old. And that so much of our national policymaking is based on the juvenile emoting of an adult who functions like a preteen."

“We are living in the stupidest f------ times,” wrote Jason Willan, a prominent fantasy sports analyst, in a social media post on X.

Roland Ley, a former contributor for Euromaidan Press, called Trump the “greatest idiot” he had witnessed in his “lifetime.”

“Just as internationally 'Gulf of America' isn't recognised, this won't be either,” Ley wrote in a social media post on X. “Not even passed by the US Senate anyway.”

In response to Trump’s announcement, Canadian horse-racing photographer Julie Wright quipped, “Lunatic says what,” and prominent online influencer Mario Nawfal argued that Trump’s trade war was “getting silly” in a post on X to his more than 3.8 million followers.

“It would require a lot more than a President’s bad mood to change the name of a gulf or great lake!” Nawfal wrote. “Maybe a vote or something a bit more thought out.”

'Sounds like me': Trump confesses to CNN that he torpedoed trade talks with Canada

Robert Davis
August 25, 2026 

RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 7, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo

President Donald Trump admitted on Tuesday that he caused the intensifying trade war between the U.S. and Canada after he added conditions to the talks at the 11th hour.

Trump spoke briefly with CNN's Jim Sciutto after Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on a bevy of U.S. goods. During the call, Sciutto asked about Canadian officials' assertion that late-stage demands were inserted into the negotiations, and the president's response was eerily surprising.

Sciutto shared a snippet of the conversation on X.

“That sounds like me,” Trump told the reporter.

“So you don't deny it?” Sciutto responded.

The president replied, “No, no, I don't deny anything. So no, they have to pay a fair amount. And if they don't pay a fair amount, we won't make a deal. That's fine.“

The exchange stunned some of the president's critics.

"At least he admitted it. LOL. Clown show operation," Dean Blundell, a Canadian comedian, posted on X.

"How Donald Trump is sending America's manufacturing economy to the brink of the abyss," Grant Stern, executive editor for Occupy Democrats, posted on X.

CNN's Daniel Dale smacks Trump with a stinging fact-check after latest Canada flop

Erik De La Garza
August 25, 2026
RAW STORY



U.S. President Donald Trump points a finger as he speaks during a roundtable on antifa, an anti-fascist movement he designated a domestic "terrorist organization" via executive order on September 22, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 8, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

President Donald Trump repeated another series of false claims about Canada as his escalating trade war with the United States’ northern neighbor erupted again this week, according to a brutal CNN fact-check.

CNN’s Daniel Dale examined two social media posts Trump published Monday, beginning with the president’s claim that “Canada’s Unemployment Rate is now at 10%, and rapidly rising.”

“This is wrong on both counts,” Dale wrote Tuesday.

“Canada’s unemployment rate declined to 6.4% in July. That was the third consecutive month it had gone down,” Dale told readers. “It was also a two-year low.”

The rate would be approximately one percentage point lower if Canada calculated unemployment using the same methodology as the United States, Dale noted. The U.S. unemployment rate was 4.1% in July.

Trump’s claim that Canada conducts “95% of their business with the U.S” also came under the microscope.

“There’s no doubt that the Canadian economy is heavily reliant on the US, but there’s no apparent basis for Trump’s '95%' figure,” Dale found. According to his report, approximately 72% of Canadian merchandise exports went to the United States in 2025, down from roughly 76% the previous year and the lowest percentage since the early 1980s.

“And the figure fell below 70% in the first half of 2026,” Dale added.

While Dale acknowledged that the United States is less dependent on Canada than Canada is on the U.S., he stressed that Canada remains a critical trading partner, particularly for northern border states.

Trump just made toilet paper a lot more expensive

President Donald Trump meets with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Tuesday, May 6, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok/Flickr)

Alex Henderson 

August 26, 2026 

ALTERNET

After U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Canada with new 50 percent tariffs, Canada responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own on Tuesday. Tariffs on some Canadian goods imported into the United States, the Associated Press (AP) reports, could be as high as 50 percent. And according to The Guardian, Americans could face higher prices for paper products like toilet paper, facial tissues and paper towels as a result.

"Using the bathroom or having a cry is about to become more expensive for North Americans as the U.S. and Canada enter a full-fledged trade war that threatens to flush away decades of peaceful trading between the two nations," journalist Lauren Aratani reports in The Guardian. "After trade negotiations broke down between the two countries last weekend, Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, vowed to match U.S. tariffs 'dollar for dollar' and unveiled a list of nearly 900 American goods that will face 25 percent to 50 percent tariffs starting on 8 September."

Many economists, both liberal and conservative, have been warning that a trade war with Canada could cost U.S. homeowners a fortune — as many building and construction materials are imported into the U.S. from Canada. And according to a Canadian government website, "Canada's counter tariffs will apply to products covering $27.6 billion in imports from the U.S. and will focus on sectors such as steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics, that are most impacted by U.S. tariffs."

Aratani emphasizes that "paper products are among the hardest-hit sectors, with Canada threatening to put tariffs of between 25 percent and 50 percent on 'toilet paper or face tissue stock' from 8 September in retaliation for a 50 percent hike from Washington DC."

"Though American toilet paper and tissues are often made domestically," Aratani explains, "they heavily rely on lumber-rich Canada for raw materials. Procter & Gamble, the owner of Charmin toilet paper, said last year that it would have to increase prices amid tariffs that were in place at the time. The U.S. imported $328m worth of toilet paper from Canada in 2024, according to the World Bank, making it by far the largest exporter of the product to the U.S. Retailers including Costco source much of their paper products from the country."

The Guardian reporter continues, "The U.S. accounts for more than 20 percent of global tissue consumption despite having only 4 percent of the world's population. The average American uses 141 rolls of toilet paper per year, making them No. 1 for No. 2s globally, just ahead of Germans, each using an average of 134 rolls annually."

‘The Red States, We’re Going to Hit Hard’: Canadian Politicians Vow to Make MAGA Pay for Trump’s Trade War

“We can put massive pain on the US,” said Ontario Premier Doug Ford.


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks about the trade dispute with the United States at the Davie Shipyard in Levis, Quebec, Canada on August 24, 2026.
(Photo by Andrej Ivanov/AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Aug 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Politicians from Canada’s two biggest political parties vowed on Monday to hit back hard against US President Donald Trump’s trade war against their country.

Trade negotiations between the two countries collapsed last week after Trump reportedly sought to restrict Canada from striking trade deals with other nations, while also pressuring the country to scrap requirements aimed at preserving the use of the French language.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned that Trump’s aggression would come back to hurt US workers.

“It’s not a surprise that the US would take some form of reprisal to our response to their unjustified tariffs,” said Carney, a member of the center-left Liberal Party. “But what message does that send to the workers in Michigan and Ohio and Kentucky and Alabama who rely on Canadian demand? We’re their largest customer for automobiles, more than the European Union, Japan, Korea.”



Carney also said there was an “attitude at the negotiating table” from US officials that “Canada is a subsidiary of the United States,” which is “not something we’re going to accept.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, a member of the rival center-right Progressive Conservative Party, delivered a more strident rebuke to Trump, vowing that Canada’s response would deliver a hit to the president’s voters.

“The red states, we’re going to hit hard,” said Ford.

The Ontario premier then outlined all the ways his country can make life more painful for US consumers so long as Trump keeps trying to undermine Canadian sovereignty.

“If it gets really, really bad, I say everything’s on the table,” Ford said. “We need everyone to be on Team Canada and throw everything and the kitchen sink at them, no matter if it’s electricity, if it’s fuel, again, if it’s potash, if it’s uranium. We need to have everything on the table... we can put massive pain on the US. President Trump underestimates us. And that’s the biggest mistake.”



Trump lashed out at both Carney and Ford in a Monday morning Truth Social post.

“The USA will always be far bigger, richer, and stronger than Canada,” Trump wrote. “Without the United States, Canada couldn’t survive—it’s where they get all of their money and, because of their current bad leadership, primarily Governor Carney, and his Flunky, Ford, they will not be allowed to keep taking advantage of the United States—their key to survival.”