Portents of Yet Another U.S. Debacle in Iran?

Eve Ottenberg

October 19, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Donald “Blockade Everybody” Trump has said he is waiting till after the midterms to attack Iran again. This assault, he vows, will be the biggest blitz of the Iran War (though more recently he downplays the whole putative project), and he even rumbles that U.S. forces may invade (Ho! Ho!) But if it is the biggest, so will be Tehran’s response: so Israel would get barbecued, the remaining U.S. bases in the region would be obliterated, zero, zilch, nada, zip oil would leave the region and maybe an American aircraft carrier or two would be sunk. For all these reasons, Trump’s threatened blitzkrieg would be lunacy, and is very unlikely ever to happen. It’s such obvious lunacy, especially given that Tehran has defeated Washington pretty consistently so far, that one must wonder if this appearance of insanity isn’t the point, namely Richard Nixon’s “madman” approach to foreign policy.

It could be. The so-called thinking would be to cow the Persians at the prospect of a homicidally deranged Trump. If so, it ain’t gonna work. They already know he’s homicidally deranged. After all, he initiated this criminal, idiotic, utterly unprovoked war for, well, no apparent reason. So they know he’s bonkers. But they also know that unless he wants to go down in history as the next Adolf Hitler, by using nukes in a pointless, unprovoked war, he’s basically impotent.

Meanwhile, The Hormuz Letter, an IRGC outlet that posts regularly on X, announced October 8 that the U.S. is preparing an “intense three-day military campaign against Iran, targeting Iran’s energy facilities, infrastructure, missile and drone arsenal and IRGC command posts and headquarters, with U.S. military commanders ready to begin the large-scale operations in the coming days, per the NYT.” An hour later, The Hormuz Letter cited the U.S. state department as having called off any attack, but then removed this post; so clearly in the Trump/IRGC propaganda war there’s lots of jockeying and things are fluid. All this, while Trump boasts about the millions of barrels of oil transiting Hormuz. But according to OilPrice.com on X October 7, “Kpler’s Michelle Brohard suspects some Gulf producers are quietly paying Iran tolls for safe Hormuz passage, possibly 10-20% of cargo. The claim is unverified, but it may help explain why Brent sits near $100.”

Tolls in Hormuz will be a feature not a bug going forward, and the world will get used to it. Turkey charges fees for ships transiting the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, and of course the Suez and Panama Canals charge tolls. It’s not the end of the world. Indeed, if tolls in Hormuz keep the world’s economy humming, then they’re quite definitely not the end of the world – unless regarded from the perspective of climate change; but even some of the most committed environmentalists advocate for a SLOW phase-out of fossil fuels, precisely in order to protect the economy, people’s livelihoods and to keep the transition seamless enough that humanity doesn’t turn against it.

Chiming into the lunacy, unsurprisingly, we have Israel. There, various big shots have mouthed off publicly about attacking Iran sooner rather than later, leading to breathless media speculation that it’s all a Netanyahu plot to cancel the Israeli election. I have no doubt he’d like to cancel the election, but it seems unlikely Jerusalem, or more accurately re geographic targeting, Tel Aviv, is ready or able to face down Iran’s supposed hypersonic missiles. Last go round, Iran’s very fast missiles did not miss. Israel lucked out, in that few of these super-duper missiles were deployed, because Tehran was busy depleting its slower, older missiles first. That luck will not hold. Lots of the older missiles are gone. That leaves the hypersonics, which Iran allegedly and quite likely has, and also its simple, newer, faster missiles – for which Israel has no defense. Those fatuous dimwits in the west who believe that Patriot air defense can cope with this threat, get nothing but pity from the armament cognoscenti.

Aware that he has caused a global energy catastrophe, and even worse, boosted the price of regular gas at the U.S. pump to $5 per gallon to say nothing of prices in the grocery store where you can’t buy three small items for under $20, on October 10, Trump announced a deal with Vladimir Putin to waive U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel shipments until April 7, 2027. That’s a long time. It indicates that a sunshine ray of sanity has penetrated the petrified gray matter in the cranium of the current white house jefe. There’s no oil for Europe. The Saudi’s are getting creamed by the Houthis and so won’t be shipping diesel. Hormuz is bottled up. Russia hasn’t been exporting oil thanks to the so-called geniuses in the CIA assisting with Kiev’s targeting of Moscow’s energy facilities, and the U.S. needs its oil, especially its diesel for shipping per Moon of Alabama on X September 8. So the big boss on the Potomac extends an olive branch to the Kremlin, knowing full well that Moscow and Tehran are allies. But oh well, that’s life.

What does that Persian/Russian alliance mean? I’ll tell you. Or rather let military expert Will Schryver on X October 10: “It is rumored Russia and Iran are colluding to defeat U.S. sanctions by having Iran ship diesel to Russia, payment for which is obtained from Russian diesel sales into the global market. Therefore, it is possible any increased supply in global markets could be Iranian exports.” Oh, those crafty Eurasians! The yokels, crooks, nutcases and dunderheads in Washington don’t stand a chance.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian president for life Volodymyr Zelensky told Trump he can take his peace pipe and shove it, because he, Zelensky, doesn’t care how badly everybody needs Russian oil, “We will burn Russian refineries,” in the soothing elocution of one of his henchmen. This intransigence has led to yet another act in the Trump show, as our dear leader threatens all sorts of fire and brimstone on the proxy he’s been arming to the teeth ever since he returned to the oval office. All I can say is if you believe this theater, you get some kind of prize and it’s not a good one. Kiev is Washington’s client and doesn’t make a move without the Empire’s approval. Trump’s going to cut off Starlink? And let Washington’s and NATO’s massive, multi-year investment in their steel porcupine right on Russia’s border, namely Ukraine, go to waste? I don’t think so. That’s about as likely as Trump imposing an arms embargo on Israel. He will not abandon Tel Aviv on the Dnieper and Zelensky knows it. So, by the way, does every sentient being in the Kremlin, which is filled with a lot more sentient beings than, say, the white house.

Those in the Kremlin reportedly gave nothing in exchange for Washington’s minimal sanctions relief: no promise to negotiate a ceasefire, no vow of restraint in military attacks, nothing. That’s because realism dominates within the Kremlin. They know very well who does the targeting for Ukraine’s attacks on Russia, which kill civilians and blow up infrastructure, and it ain’t Santa Claus – it’s the CIA. Just as Putin has insisted, starting back in December 2021, in his letter to Genocide Joe Biden that the “root causes” of Russia’s complaint against Ukraine be addressed by the U.S. That means no Ukraine in NATO, no more genocide of Russian speakers in the Donbas. This Trump will not do. Neither one. So that means the war will continue, Moscow knows very well it’s fighting the entire west, yet it moves slowly and steadily, like the winner in Aesop’s “The Tortoise and the Hare.”

Just as the sporadically violent stalemate in the Persian Gulf will continue. All Iran must do to win is to survive. It has done so. The monstrously swollen heads in Washington and Jerusalem did not dream that would happen. They committed the fundamental error of believing their own ridiculous propaganda and in so doing committed a crime and worse, as they say, a blunder. So Trump’s useless fulminations against Iran will continue, but the jig is up, because Washington can’t win against either Tehran or Moscow, whom it has thrown into each other’s arms. Along, of course, with China.

Americans, take note of this sorry prognostication re Trump’s wars on Iran and Russia: Don’t expect prices to drop until he leaves the white house.

Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest book is “Perspective and 58 Other Stories.” She can be reached at her website.

Vote for Québec solidaire to block the right and open horizons

By Bernard Rioux

Published 7 October, 2026

First published in French at Presse-toi à gauche. Translation and introduction by Richard Fidler for Life on the Left.

Quebec’s general election on October 5 was contested by five parties. Four are right-wing: the pro-independence Parti québecois (PQ), which replaced the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) in government, and the Liberals and Conservatives. The latter three are federalist or autonomist in constitutional orientation. Challenging these parties was the left-wing and pro-independence Québec solidaire, founded in 2005, which won nine seats compared to the 11 it held in Quebec’s National Assembly.

This was a difficult election for QS. Quebec politics today are dominated by the rightward trend evident throughout the hemisphere and QS is far behind the capitalist parties in public opinion polls.

The online weekly journal Presse-toi à gauche supports Québec solidaire and the party’s left wing, now identified as “The Party of the Streets,” which aims to build support for QS in the unions and social movements. Also supporting QS in this election campaign was an open letter signed by about 100 activists and journalists, entitled “The only shield against austerité.”

In the following article, PTàG editor Bernard Rioux makes the case for voting for QS, while pointing to serious deficiencies in its electoral platform. 

---

Vote for QS to block the right and open horizons

In a Quebec political landscape where the other four political parties are proposing tax cuts, partial privatizations or a disengagement of the state, Québec solidaire’s program is distinguished by an opposite orientation. This is based on the idea that contemporary social problems do not come from a state that is too present, but from a state that is insufficiently equipped and whose resources are too concentrated in the hands of the society’s wealthiest. This simple reversal of the diagnosis has a political significance that goes beyond the content of each measure taken in isolation. It keeps alive, in the public debate, the hypothesis that broader public intervention is not only possible, but desirable.

The importance for the social left of voting for Québec solidaire despite the limits of the definition of its social project

This rejection of the logic of reducing the welfare state can be seen first and foremost in taxation. The tax on large fortunes, aimed at assets of more than $25 million, reaffirms the principle of redistributing wealth at a time when the other parties are proposing instead to reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest taxpayers or corporations. While the real return on this tax will depend on the extent of tax avoidance strategies, its very existence in the electoral debate prevents the issue of wealth distribution from disappearing from the political agenda.

By proposing a 3 percent cap on rent increases, a moratorium on evictions, a fight against speculation, and the penalization of abusive landlords, as well as the acquisition of thousands of properties to offer them below the market price, among other measures, Québec solidaire is not content to mitigate the effects of a market deemed to be failing. It holds that the state can once again become a direct actor — owner, regulator, even competitor — rather than a mere arbiter. It is exactly the same logic that underlies the project of public non-profit grocery stores: by capping the margins of large chains and creating public outlets, QS proposes that the state compete directly with the private sector instead of limiting itself to regulating it from without.

In health care, the massive return to CLSCs [community health clinics], placing them in the front line, goes in the same direction: it reaffirms the principle of a universal public system at a time when the growing use of the private sector is not condemned by the CAQ, the Quebec Liberal Party, or especially by the Conservative Party of Quebec, which presents the private sector as a solution to strengthening access to the health care system. Free contraception, eye and dental care for minors, and universal school meals are part of the same philosophy: to expand, rather than contain, the scope of what the community collectively undertakes to cover.

Québec solidaire also proposes a whole series of measures aimed at fighting women’s poverty and domestic violence, and giving victims of domestic violence more means to find safety and regain their autonomy.

What distinguishes this program from a simple policy of defensive resistance, however, is that it is not limited to protecting the gains: it opens up projects that, once started, can create their own dynamics of transformation. Reform of the voting system and referendums by popular initiative are not simple administrative measures: they change the rules of the democratic game themselves, which can facilitate the adoption of more ambitious reforms than those included in the current program. Similarly, the Constituent Assembly co-constructed with the First Peoples places the independence project within a participatory approach that goes beyond the traditional electoral framework and leaves the door open to a broader refoundation of the social contract.

Mission-based funding for community organizations, the climate emergency fund, the gradual phase-out of oil and gas infrastructure, and the massive development of free public transit for young people and seniors all work together to chart a coherent trajectory: each measure, taken alone, corrects a specific inequity, but as a whole this installs an institutional infrastructure — fiscal, democratic and energy — on which more important transformations could then be supported. It is in this sense that Québec solidaire’s program can be read as a brake on the neoliberal trend in Quebec politics.

Faced with the right-wing policies defended by the other major political parties, a vote for Québec solidaire is therefore a vote in defence of the interests of the popular majority. This is all the more important for activists from the various social movements — trade-union, feminist, popular, student, etc. A joint declaration by activists from these different social movements could be an important contribution to the defence of the gains of the popular majority.

The limits of defensive demands incapable of presenting an alternative social project to capitalism

Québec solidaire’s program shifts from the dominant right-wing discourse of the other parties. It reaffirms the legitimacy of public intervention, fiscal redistribution and market regulation. But this shift, as real as it is, takes place almost entirely within the existing framework of capitalist property and economic power relations. The problem is constantly posed in terms of insufficient or unfair results produced by the market, but rarely in terms of who controls the means of production and who therefore holds the decision-making power.

This absence has concrete effects on the nature of the solutions proposed. Let’s take the most telling example: the $2 billion “Trump provision” intended to support companies affected by the tariff war. It is a transfer of public funds to the private sector to help it maintain jobs and transform production, without any quid pro quo in terms of ownership, governance or workers' control over these companies. The state thus finances the survival and restructuring of capital rather than considering, for example, the nationalization of strategic companies or the establishment of workers’ cooperatives as alternatives.

The 2035 Transition Plan constitutes, in relation to the prevailing climate inaction and the refusal of the other parties to make a clear break with the exploitation of hydrocarbons, a set of important redistributive and regulatory measures. But, if we analyse these proposals from the systemic bases of the crisis, they fall short of the necessities posed by the climate emergency and the loss of biodiversity.

The crisis is described more as a problem of governance and poor choices than as the result of a capitalist economic system hung up on growth incapable of respecting planetary boundaries. Thus the 2035 Transition Plan states: “In reality, the climate crisis is the result of poor economic choices as well as ineffective and poorly targeted policies.” The proposed climate targets fall short of the scientific urgency highlighted by the IPCC. The nationalization of renewable energies is not presented as a priority. The industrial policy relies on partnership with employers rather than on public and democratic planning. Public transit remains partially commodified, since free travel is restricted to young people and seniors. The construction of public transit infrastructure is left to the private sector. The protection of the territory is mainly based on a regulatory framework, while the exploitation of mining and forestry resources remains largely in the hands of large Canadian and American multinational companies. The plan aims to strengthen food autonomy without calling into question agro-export agriculture, a large part of which is focused on animal production.

As for the independence project, the text presents it mainly through the prism of a constituent and participatory approach, co-constructed with the First Peoples — which distinguishes it from the Parti Québécois in terms of method. But there is no sufficiently developed link between independence and a critique of Quebec’s structural dependence on foreign capital, continental value chains or international financial institutions.

Independence is therefore thought of mainly as an institutional reform and as national recognition, rather than as a break with relations of economic domination that go beyond the Canadian framework alone. For an anti-imperialist reading of sovereignty, this leaves intact the question of who would really own an independent Quebec and what its relationship would be to militarist alliances like NATO and NORAD. These questions are all the more important when confronted with the PQ project, defined in its Blue Book as a project of independence which, in this analysis, remains marked by a neocolonial orientation.

Finally, in the field of labour itself, the program remains largely within the parameters of the existing wage system: an increase in the minimum wage, an improvement in conditions in the community sector, and the hiring of staff in the public services. These are real gains for workers, but there are no measures to affect economic democracy in the strongest sense: no mention of increased representation of workers on boards of directors, union vetoes over closures and relocations, expansion of the cooperative or self-managed sector, or a plan of nationalizations democratically controlled by those who work there.

It can therefore be argued that Québec solidaire acts as a brake on the neoliberal trend by reaffirming the role of the redistributive state. This is why the mobilization to broaden its electorate is an important issue for the left. But this strategic choice should not prevent us from understanding that QS’s proposals do not, on their own, provide a strategic compass for the radical transformation needed to shift economic decision-making power out of the hands of capital.

Such a transformation is essential to confront the economic, social and ecological crises faced by the people of Quebec, like the rest of humanity.

Voting for QS can thus help block social retreat and the slippage to the right, while leaving open the need to build, beyond its current program, a real ecosocialist alternative to capitalism.

 

Investigating the Hidden Costs of World’s Farmed Seafood

Courtesy of the Outlaw Ocean Project

By The Outlaw Ocean Project 2026-10-09 

For nearly a decade, the Outlaw Ocean Project, the non-profit journalistic organization that I founded, has produced high-impact investigative stories about lawlessness at sea and the variety of threats posed to the people and biodiversity of a space that covers two thirds of our planet.

The oceans bear a heavy and largely invisible burden. The public usually takes it for granted, a forever self-replenishing resource that we use to fill our stomachs or line our wallets. Our journalism intends to stoke urgency and to help the public reimagine the oceans, less a grocery store than a library or a cathedral, a protected common.

Aquaculture was meant to ease pressure on the oceans. By raising fish, fewer would need to be taken from the wild—or so the logic went. In practice, the opposite has occurred. More than a fifth of all marine life removed from the oceans is used for feed, primarily for farmed fish. And demand for farm-raised fish is increasing. More than half of the seafood eaten globally comes from aquaculture, which is a $313-billion industry and the fastest-growing segment of global food production.

Over the past 5 years, an international team of journalists at The Outlaw Ocean Project examined the largely unaccounted-for toll of using food for feed. We focused on one of the world’s most important feed ingredients: fishmeal.

Consisting of two dozen stories and documentary films, the Food for Feed investigation offers a sobering picture of what fish-farming really entails, including forced labor, avoidable worker deaths, rampant stench, lost livelihoods, civil unrest, illegal fishing, food insecurity and species disappearance. Obscured behind aquaculture’s well-marketed reputation for sustainability and clever, eco-friendly adaptation, most of these ills have remained invisible to the consumers of farmed fish. Until now.

What We Did

The reporting began by identifying the locations of more than 1,400 fishmeal factories across 64 countries—facilities responsible for nearly the entire global supply of this lucrative, protein-rich, dark-yellow powder and its oil counterpart. We assessed more than 2,400 ships tied to fishmeal production, operating in the waters of at least 30 countries.

To do that, we assembled a global network of more than two dozen journalists operating in as many countries. The team included coders who scraped and structured data from government databases and researchers who monitored local reporting, court records, and social media for evidence of labor abuses, environmental violations, community complaints, and other issues linked to fishmeal production.

The reporting also involved intensive, on-the-ground work. Reporting teams took six voyages at sea, including the South China Sea, the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, and the North Atlantic Ocean. These expeditions involved boarding fishmeal vessels to review logbooks, inspect living conditions, interview workers, and document potentially illegal practices. On land, reporters visited fishmeal factories and aquaculture sites across Senegal, Thailand, Peru, Gambia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Greece, and India.

Along these supply chains, the investigation documented a wide range of impacts: The depletion of local fish stocks; food insecurity in communities where inexpensive, edible fish is diverted to animal feed; and exposure to hazardous chemicals among residents living near fishmeal plants and waste-dumping sites. The reporting also tracked worker deaths and injuries on fishmeal-associated vessels or in fishmeal plants. The industry impacted the climate by clearing forests of carbon-capturing mangroves and meadows of seagrass to make way for fish farms, and shipping feed to customers thousands of miles away.

To counter these hidden costs and hold the industry accountable, documenting the abuses was only the first step. It was equally important to make the evidence transparent, accessible, and usable by others. To that end, The Outlaw Ocean Project developed several additional tools designed to increase transparency around both our reporting and the fishmeal industry.

The Discussion page documents the correspondence between our journalists and more than 400 companies, government agencies, and certification bodies cited in the reporting. Several months before publication, we contacted each organization, presented them with the relevant findings and methodology, and invited them to respond to specific questions. We published these exchanges in full.

In the stories, we published footnotes that provided the sourcing behind every reported claim, including archived links to all cited documents, news articles, raw data, and web pages.

The methodology page provides a comprehensive public account of the entire investigation’s approach, including the documents, websites, code, and raw data utilized throughout the project. Additionally, case-by-case methodology is offered by way of superscript notes attached to key paragraphs or sections of the investigation.

Bait to Plate

Bait to Plate is an interactive tool that maps seafood supply chains and indicates the crimes and concerns hidden within them. Rather than telling one story or giving one explanation, this tool offers an infinite variety. Think of it as a smart fact-shuffler: it takes tens of thousands of reports from the Outlaw Ocean Project and elsewhere about ships, plants, and companies, then snaps them together like Legos to answer a user’s exact question.

To better navigate Bait to Plate, we created the B2P Bot, which allows users to ask any question they can imagine. The database holds thousands of entities and tens of thousands of connections. A journalist or other researcher who doesn’t know exactly what to look for can spend hours clicking through tables and filters. The B2P Bot allows real-world questions instead. The bot also sees the specific information on a user’s page and what entity they are viewing, and which visualization is open. As a result, a user can ask “What can you tell me about this company?”, and the bot understands the context of the question based on the page the user is on.  

The bot has been leashed in ways we think are important. For example, it is limited to foregrounding existing reporting rather than writing its own prose or analysis. The content that it surfaces is always clearly cited to its source type so that a user can discern whether they find that source trustworthy.  

What Comes Next

Bait to Plate will continue to grow. Daily, staff at the Outlaw Ocean Project culls hundreds of news articles, NGO or government reports pertaining to ships, plants and farms for additional supply-chain mapping. Our goal with this tool is to be a one-stop-shopping reference for journalists, advocates, researchers, law enforcement and company sustainability officers. By sharing data and investigative resources, the Outlaw Ocean Project seeks not only to expose wrongdoing, but to help create the transparency necessary for institutions, companies, and governments to be held accountable.

(The Food for Feed investigation was conducted by an international team of journalists based at The Outlaw Ocean Project.)

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

Trump slashes tariffs to flood U.S. with 661 million pounds of foreign beef — Nebraska ranchers push back

Avril Ayers
Fri, October 9, 2026 

MONEYWISE

In March 2026, President Donald Trump touted the value of American beef, saying he wanted to make it easier for Americans to buy U.S.-made beef. But in recent months, his administration has clashed with ranches and farms extensively.

Beef prices in the U.S. have skyrocketed from an average of $4.47 per pound in August 2021 to $6.92 in August 2026.

Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake. Here's what it is and 3 simple steps to fix it ASAP

The Trump administration has responded by drastically cutting tariffs on imported beef, allowing 300,000 metric tons — or 661 million pounds — into the U.S. It promises the beef will be sold at 25% below market prices.

That might seem reassuring next time you're at the grocery store, but for food inspection experts and American ranchers, this has been a worrying development.

And for voters in Nebraska, where the cattle industry was worth $11.43 billion in 2025, it could help sway a competitive House race to the left.
Why beef has gotten so expensive

For ranchers across the U.S., it has been a dry, difficult year.

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, 57% of American cattle are in locations with moderate or greater drought, a 27% year-over-year growth.

The total amount of cattle in the U.S. has been declining for decades, with 86 million heads of cattle at the start of 2026. That leaves ranchers with a difficult decision: Do they focus on increasing the size of their herd, or do they improve short-term profits by selling cattle?

America's constrained beef supply is complicated by the fact that the government is heavily pushing beef as a health food.

That's largely due to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. On Jan. 11, 2026, the White House posted a photo of Kennedy on X with the caption "We are ending the war on protein."

Kennedy has extensively promoted beef, as well as beef tallow as a cooking fat. Doctors have raised concerns, saying that Kennedy is wrong about seed oils being dangerous and beef fat benign.

Americans are worried about food safety

The Trump administration hopes it can lower the price of beef by importing more beef from countries like Brazil and Argentina.

However, many people are worried about the risk of contaminated food, and ranchers have been encouraging people to seek out U.S.-grown beef instead.

The EU banned imports of Brazilian beef on Sept. 3, 2026, saying that it did not meet requirements on the use of antibiotics and other antimicrobials.

According to a survey by GS1, 94% of U.S. adults are worried about the frequency of food recalls. 67% have avoided buying certain types of foods entirely due to recalls, and 59% are more willing to buy a product with more detailed product information.

The ranching industry has responded by embracing a new "Product of USA" label that now appears on some U.S. food.

"This is a positive step in advancing our goal of empowering consumers to support America's beef supply chain through their purchasing decisions," Bill Bullard, CEO of ranchers' association R-CALF, said.
The cost of beef could help Democrats flip a House seat in Nebraska

In Nebraska's second congressional district, beef and fuel prices are crucial both for Republican Brinker Harding and Democrat Denise Powell. Polls in the district have so far swung in Powell's direction.

Harding was endorsed by Trump, but he's opposed to the plan to import beef. In an Aug. 21 post on X, he wrote, "The real solution involves growing the U.S. cattle herd to meet demand."

On Monday, Oct. 5, Trump signed an executive order reducing restrictions on red-dyed diesel at a campaign event in Nebraska.

Red-dyed diesel is exempt from certain taxes, but it is only legal for certain uses, including agriculture. The Trump administration argues that removing these restrictions will help businesses and farmers that rely on diesel.

"The typical trucker will save more than $100 every time they fill up," Trump said.

This article originally appeared on Moneywise.com 

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

 

More than half of LQBTQ+ adults in Massachusetts faced food insecurity in 2024

New study identifies rising need and persistent barriers to food assistance

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

BOSTON, Mass. — More than half of LGBTQ+ adults in Massachusetts experienced food insecurity in 2024, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open. Researchers also found that food insecurity increased from 2022 to 2024 and remained significantly more common among LGBTQ+ adults than among non-LGBTQ+ adults.

Food insecurity disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ adults
The study analyzed data from 9,174 adults who participated in the Massachusetts Statewide Food Access Survey between 2022 and 2024. Researchers found that 54.9% of LGBTQ+ adults experienced food insecurity in 2024, compared with 33.3% of non-LGBTQ+ adults. The disparity persisted throughout the study period, even after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic differences.

Food insecurity occurs when people do not have reliable access to enough affordable, nutritious food. While previous research has shown that LGBTQ+ people face higher rates of food insecurity, less was known about how these disparities have changed over time or what barriers may limit access to food assistance programs. Researchers therefore examined trends in food insecurity, food pantry use, and participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as well as barriers to accessing these resources.

“More than half of LGBTQ+ adults in Massachusetts experienced food insecurity in 2024,” said lead author Austin R. Waters, research fellow in the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence at the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute. “Differences in income and other economic factors did not fully explain this gap, suggesting that LGBTQ+ people face additional barriers that put them at greater risk of food insecurity.”

Common barriers include privacy concerns, self-reliance, and embarrassment
Although food insecurity increased during the study period, use of food assistance programs remained relatively unchanged. Among LGBTQ+ adults who did not use food pantries, common barriers included a desire to remain self-reliant, embarrassment, concerns about others finding out, and difficulties accessing information or services. Several of these barriers increased over time.

“LGBTQ+ adults are facing growing food needs, but they also face barriers to getting help, including embarrassment and fear that others will know they use a food pantry,” said Waters. “We need solutions designed with LGBTQ+ communities that make food assistance easier to access while protecting people's dignity and avoiding further stigmatizing a population that already experiences stigma and discrimination.”

LGBTQ+ community-informed solutions could improve access and uptake

Participants suggested several ways to improve access, including grocery gift cards, home delivery, curbside pickup, online ordering, and assistance navigating SNAP enrollment.

"This study highlights a persistent public health inequity that extends beyond economic stability alone," said senior author Brittany Charlton, Harvard Medical School associate professor of population medicine at the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute. "Food assistance programs can play an important role in reducing food insecurity, but they must also address the stigma and logistical barriers that prevent many LGBTQ+ adults from accessing support."

Findings highlight opportunities for policy and program improvements
The researchers say future interventions should be developed in partnership with LGBTQ+ communities to make services more accessible, inclusive, and responsive to their needs. As policymakers debate changes to food assistance programs and many households continue to face high food costs, targeted efforts to improve access could help reduce longstanding disparities in food security.

The study included collaboration with the Greater Boston Food Bank and Mass General Brigham and used data from the Massachusetts Statewide Food Access Survey.

Waters AR, Fiechtner LG, Perkins ME, Luo M, Schuckel MF, D'Amato C, Charlton BM. Food Insecurity, Food Assistance Use, and Barriers to Food Assistance Among LGBTQ+ Adults in Massachusetts. JAMA Network Open. 2026.

---

About the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute’s Department of Population Medicine
The Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute's Department of Population Medicine is a unique collaboration between Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School. Created in 1992, it is the first appointing medical school department in the United States based in a health plan. The Institute focuses on improving health care delivery and population health through innovative research and education, in partnership with health plans, delivery systems, and public health agencies. Follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn.

---

Journal

JAMA Network Open

Article Title

Food Insecurity, Food Assistance Use, and Barriers to Food Assistance Among LGBTQ+ Adults in Massachusetts

Article Publication Date

8-Oct-2026