NATURAL CAPITAL

New study values the benefits of mangroves for reducing property damages in recent hurricanes

Researchers used industry models to price the benefit of mangroves during Hurricanes Irma and Ian at $725 million and $4.1 billion, respectively

University of California - Santa Cruz

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

In industry risk models, mangroves significantly reduce surge and flood damages to properties built behind forests while properties built in front of mangroves face increased risks.

view more 

Credit: Image by J. Kendall-Bar, UC Santa Cruz

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. – A new study led by the UC Santa Cruz Center for Coastal Climate Resilience (CCCR) and East Carolina University (ECU) has found that mangroves significantly reduced storm surges and property damages during Hurricanes Irma in 2017 and Ian in 2022. In collaboration with the catastrophe risk modeling firm Moody’s RMS, the team used industry models to price the mangrove benefits during these hurricanes at $725 million and $4.1 billion, respectively.

The study, published on October 14 in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability, also assessed the expected benefits of mangroves for storm surge protection at $67 million annually in southwestern Florida’s Collier County. These natural flood defenses are especially important economically in Florida, with its extensive coastline, expensive coastal properties, extreme events, and some exceptional stands of mangrove forests still remaining.

Overall, the study found that mangroves reduce flood losses for coastal homes built inland of the trees. But in some locations, especially for properties in front of mangroves, the team found that properties actually face higher damages due to mangroves.

With their unique aerial root systems, mangroves thrive in marine environments because they can filter saltwater into freshwater. In Florida, an estimated 600,000 acres of mangrove forests contribute to the overall health of the state’s southern coastal zone and beyond, according to the state’s environmental protection department.

The study—a collaboration between CCCR, ECU, Moody’s RMS, and The Nature Conservancy—is the first to value the benefit of mangroves using catastrophe risk industry models.

“In this collaboration with the risk-modeling industry, we show the value of mangrove forests in reducing property damages from storm surges every year,” said study lead author Siddharth Narayan, a recent CCCR research fellow. “Similar to how salt-marsh wetlands from New York to North Carolina reduced damages during Hurricane Sandy, coastal properties in Florida avoided anywhere between 14 to 30% in surge losses during Hurricanes Ian and Irma due to mangroves acting as natural defenses.”

Now a professor of coastal studies at ECU, Narayan hails from Chennai, a tropical coastal city in South India where he completed his bachelor’s in civil engineering. At UC Santa Cruz and UC Santa Barbara, he focused on coastal adaptation and nature-based solutions.

Nationally, storm surges from tropical cyclones and hurricanes cause billions of dollars in coastal property damages every year. However, natural ecosystems such as mangrove forests can, by their presence on these coastlines, modify storm surges and affect property damages, the study states.

There is growing awareness that mangroves are an important part of storm defenses, and the study aims to increase understanding of when, where and how properties benefit from the effects of mangroves on storm surges.

“Mangroves provide many benefits to communities, and it is particularly important that we used a risk industry model to put a price on their flood protection benefits,” said CCCR Director Michael Beck, the study’s senior author. “Like it or not, we only protect what we value, and this is doubly true if it should influence the cost of insurance.”

Further, Beck noted: “The results of these industry models show the real benefits of conserving Florida’s mangroves for property protection and the real costs of choosing to develop in front of these natural barriers.”

Other co-authors of the study include Christopher Thomas, Kechi Nzerem, and Joss Matthewman at Moody’s RMS, Christine Shephard and Laura Geselbracht from The Nature Conservancy. Funding from the Walton Family Foundation, the Herbert W. Hoover Foundation, AXA Research Fund, and the National Science Foundation supported this work.

---

Journal

Cell Reports Sustainability

DOI

10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100531 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

The spatially variable effects of mangroves on flood depths and losses from storm surges in Florida

Article Publication Date

14-Oct-2025

COI Statement

Co-authors C.J.T. and K.N. are employees of Moody’s RMS, London. C.S. and L.G. are employees of The Nature Conservancy, USA. J.M. was an employee at Moody’s RMS and is currently an employee at Reask, London.

 'Kick in the teeth': Key indicator comes in ‘scorching hot’ just as Trump tariffs hit

Brad Reed
Common Dreams

August 17, 2025 |


A leading inflation indicator surged much more than expected last month, just as the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs started to weigh on American businesses and consumers.

New Producer Price Index (PPI) numbers released on Thursday showed that wholesale prices rose by 0.9% over the last month and by 3.3% over the last year. These numbers were significantly higher than economists' consensus estimates of a 0.2% monthly rise and a 2.5% yearly rise in producer prices.

PPI is a leading indicator of future readings of the Consumer Price Index, the most widely cited gauge of inflation, as increases in wholesalers' prices almost inevitably get passed on to consumers. Economists have been predicting for months that Trump's tariffs on imported goods, which at the moment are higher than at any point in nearly 100 years, would lead to a spike in inflation.

Reacting to the higher-than-expected PPI number, some economic experts pinned the blame directly on the president.

"So much for foreigners paying tariffs," commented Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at tax consulting firm RSM US, on X. "If they did, PPI would be falling. Wholesale prices up 3.3% from a year ago and 3.7% in the core. The temperature is definitely rising in the core. This implies a hot PCE reading lies ahead."

Liz Pancotti, the managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, took a deep dive into the numbers and found that Trump's tariffs were having an impact on a wide range of products.

"There is no mistaking it: President Trump's tariffs are hitting American farmers and driving up grocery prices for American families," she said. "Wholesale prices for grocery staples, like fresh vegetables (up 39% over the past month) and coffee (up 29% over the past year) are rising, squeezing American families even further in the checkout line."

Pancotti singled out the rise in milk prices as particularly worrisome for American families.

"Milk drove more than 30% of the increase in prices for unprocessed goods, rising by 9.1% in just the past month," she explained. "Tuesday's CPI print showed that milk prices rose by 1.9% in July, and this PPI data suggests further price hikes are on the way."

Betsey Stevenson, who served on former President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, also pointed the finger at Trump's policies.

"Tariffs will cause higher prices," she said. "Volatility and uncertainty will cause higher prices. The PPI jump is not a surprise, it was inevitable."

On his Bluesky account, CNBC's Carl Quintanilla flagged analysis from economic research firm High Frequency Economics stating that the new PPI numbers were "a kick in the teeth for anyone who thought that tariffs would not impact domestic prices in the United States economy."

The firm added that it "will not be a long journey for producers' prices to translate into consumer prices" in the coming months.

Liz Thomas, the head of investment strategy at finance company SoFi, argued that the hot PPI numbers could further frustrate Trump's goal of getting the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates given that doing so would almost certainly boost inflation further.

"The increase in PPI was driven by services, and there were increases in general services costs and in the Trade component (i.e., wholesale/retail margins)," she commented. "The Fed won't like this report."

Ross Hendricks, an analyst at economic research firm Porter & Co., described the new report as "scorching hot" and similarly speculated that it would stop the Federal Reserve from cutting rates.

"Good luck with them rate cuts!" he wrote. "Can't recall the last time we've seen a miss that big on a single monthly inflation number."

Hedge fund manager and author Jeff Macke jokingly speculated that the bad PPI print would cause Trump to fire yet another government statistician just as he fired Erika McEntarfer, the former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Whoever compiles the PPI needs to update their CV," he wrote.

Just as with the monthly jobs report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects and publishes PPI data.

'Just baffled': Economist questions how Trump claims his plan is 'a win for America'

U.S. President Donald Trump reacts as he meets with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (not pictured) at Trump Turnberry golf club on July 28, 2025 in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain. Christopher Furlong/Pool via REUTERS

Adam Lynch

August 16, 2025 

ALTERNET

Natasha Sarin, president and co-founder of The Budget Lab at Yale, says she bristles at the thought of President Donald Trump touting his recent E.U. trade deal as a win.

“The idea that taking a tariff rate of 1.5 percent and turning it into a tariff rate of 15 percent plus is somehow a win for Americans — I’m just baffled by the concept,” said the economist to New York Times reporter Ezra Klein. “Because no one would say that if you took the sales tax on certain goods and you increased it 15-fold that was a win for Americans. But effectively, that’s what we’ve done.”

Sarin said the U.S. economy before President Trump took office was doing “quite well” relative to the rest of the world recovering from pandemic, despite many polls. Inflation had been very high, but it was coming back down toward the Fed’s 2 percent target, with just the last mile to go. The labor market, she said, was strong.

And then President Trump took office.

“At the time, many commentators, including myself, said the best-case scenario for the economy is literally if [Trump] did nothing,” Sarin said. “… Instead, beginning on Liberation Day and continuing since, the president and his administration initiated a trade war aimed at remaking the global order. The consequences of the trade war have been some of the most inflationary policies we’ve seen in our lifetimes.”

Now Trump’s trade war is beginning to reverberate.

“The Budget Lab at Yale, which I run, estimates that we’re going to see household prices increase by around $2,000 a year. We’re going to see an inflation uptick, and we’re going to see a weaker labor market as a result of all that has already been done.

Sarin told Klein the only reason most other nations haven’t responded to Trump’s tariffs with retaliatory tariffs of their own is because tariffs “are a bad tax” on their own people by forcing folks at the middle or bottom of the tax code to pay proportionately more for goods and necessities.

Most countries, she said “don’t want to hit low- and middle-income people who consume most of what they earn.”

Plus, if you make it more expensive to buy goods, Sarin said people are going to buy fewer goods, and demand drops. People buy fewer TVs and couches because they’re more expensive — then production and investment in those types of capacities decrease, and the economy goes into a drag.

“Over the last six months our growth rate has been around 1.2 percent,” said Sarin, who is also a law professor. “It was supposed to be — as of last November, when we made projections — basically twice that. So, this is having a real effect on the economy. It’s slowing and shrinking it. That’s exactly what our models predict, and that’s exactly what economists … would expect to happen from these types of policies.”

Read the full New York Times report at this link.

'Gloom' over Trump economy hits worst levels 'since the Great Recession': report

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speak during a tour of the Federal Reserve Board building, which is currently undergoing renovations, in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 24, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura/File Photo

Alex Henderson

August 16, 2025

ALTERNET

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), unemployment in the United States was at 4.2 percent in July — which is far from a recession. But the BLS also found that the U.S. is hurting in terms of job creation; the 4.2 percent figure largely reflects Americans who are holding on to jobs they already have rather than starting new jobs. And President Donald Trump was so angry over the BLS' job creation data that he fired ex-BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer and nominated a MAGA loyalist for the position: E.J. Antoni, known for his work with the Heritage Foundation.

In an article published on August 16, Axios' Courtenay Brown lays out some reasons why so many Americans are feeling "gloomy" about the economy.

"Americans haven't been this gloomy about the job market since the Great Recession," Brown reports. "Why it matters: Fears about joblessness have surged since President Trump unveiled plans to impose steep tariffs on foreign goods. The economy might have hit a soft patch, but it has so far dodged the bleak predictions from a few months ago."

Nonetheless, Brown notes that "consumers are still bracing for the worst to come."

"As of early August," Brown explains, "that pessimism was in step with that of the 2008 financial crisis. About 62 percent of consumers believe unemployment will worsen in the year ahead, according to the University of Michigan's latest monthly survey. That's bounced around a little in the last few months, but consistently hung around levels not seen since the Great Recession…. The concerns about higher unemployment are paired with worries about an inflation resurgence."

The University of Michigan's consumer report was released on August 15.

Joanne Hsu, the report's director, is quoted as saying, "Although CPI inflation has not surged, our data show that consumers are still bracing for an increase in inflation to come. Moreover, consumers are also concerned that labor markets will weaken."

Brown notes that The Great Recession was the United States' "worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

When the stock market crashed in 1929, U.S. unemployment was only 3.2 percent, according to Investopedia. By 1932, it was up to 23 percent. Americans were so angry about the economy that year that Democratic presidential nominee Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated incumbent GOP President Herbert Hoover by a landslide and picked up a whopping 472 electoral votes.

The Great Recession wasn't as severe as The Great Depression, but Brown recalls that in late 2008 and 2009, "The stock market was falling off a cliff, unemployment filings soared and the jobless rate would ultimately peak at 10 percent."

Brown continues, "Now: The economy is slowing, though fears are worse than the official data suggests so far. The unemployment rate is holding at a historically low 4.2 percent, as of July. Hiring has stalled, but so have layoffs. There are fewer unemployment filings now than in July 2021, when a record-low share of Americans (14 percent) said they anticipated higher unemployment in the year ahead."

Read Courtenay Brown's full report for Axios at this link.

'Buyer’s remorse': Trump’s consumer confidence drops below Biden levels

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference about deploying federal law enforcement agents in Washington to bolster the local police presence, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House

Adam Lynch

August 15, 2025  

ALTERNET

U.S. Consumers appear to be dreading their Trumpian future, according to the University of Michigan’s most recent Consumer Sentiment Index.

“Consumer sentiment fell back about 5 percent in August, declining for the first time in four months,” according to the report. “This deterioration largely stems from rising worries about inflation.”

Preliminary results for the month showed consumer confidence down 13.7 percent from a year ago, during former President Joe Biden's term. Despite confidence being higher under the last administration, voters still rolled Biden out of office, largely based on economic dissatisfaction at high prices.

The report also revealed that consumers continue to expect both inflation and unemployment to deteriorate in the future, with “year-ahead inflation expectations” rising from 4.5 percent last month to 4.9 percent this month.

“This increase was seen across multiple demographic groups and all three political affiliations,” the report adds.

The numbers put an end to two consecutive months of receding inflation for short-run expectations and three straight months for long-run expectations.

Social media reacted badly to Bloomberg Reporter Joe Weisenthal posting the “ugly consumer sentiment numbers,” and blamed President Donald Trump for much of the anxiety.

“It’s incredible how back we are,” one commenter snidely posted on X, while another pointed out how thoroughly “the media buried Biden's presidency using data points like this but seem oddly disinterested now that Trump is back in charge.”

Another online commenter posted: “Buyer's remorse is hitting folks earlier than expected,” and blamed the courts, the media, corporate America, the Congressional GOP, and the GOP base for failing to provide “any check on Trump.”

Still another X user warned that “we are just now seeing increasing wholesale inflation as businesses have eaten through their pre-tariff glut. That means we are almost certainly going to see higher prices hitting the shelves very soon."

See the preliminary numbers at this link.

Tariff revenue fails to curb US deficit as July spending hits record highs

Copyright Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By Una Hajdari

Published on 13/08/2025 - 

Even with customs revenue quadrupling under new tariffs, record-high spending on benefits, healthcare and debt interest drove the largest monthly deficit in US history.

The US federal deficit surged to $291 billion (€248bn) in July, marking a 19% increase from the same month last year and one of the biggest jumps in recent years, according to Treasury Department data.

It’s the largest spending total ever recorded for the month of July, though some other months—particularly during the peak of COVID-19 stimulus—saw even higher outlays overall.

Even though the country is now earning more from tariffs—customs receipts were multiplied by four, going from about $7.1 billion (€6.06bn) in July 2024 to roughly $27.7 billion (€23.7bn) this year—this was not enough to offset a sharp rise in spending.

Why is the US federal deficit increasing?

Spending rose as bigger Social Security checks, increased Medicare and Medicaid costs, and higher interest payments on the national debt combined with pricier defence, education and healthcare programs, pushing the July deficit to a record high

The July figure follows a volatile stretch in the federal government’s monthly balances, driven in part by new import duties and the quirks of the fiscal calendar.

RelatedConservative-leaning AI platform Perplexity makes shock bid to buy 'rival' Google Chrome

In May, the deficit narrowed to $316 billion (€269.8bn), or $219 billion (€187bn) when adjusted for timing differences, as tariff revenue from newly imposed import taxes provided an early windfall. June appeared at first to show a rare surplus, but this was largely an illusion—when adjusted for payment shifts, the month actually posted a $71 billion (€60.6bn) defici

July’s return to a deep shortfall underscores a broader fiscal reality. Namely, while tariffs have injected tens of billions into the Treasury in recent months, they have not changed the structural imbalance between revenue and expenditure. Spending has continued to outpace receipts, even amid healthy customs income.

June’s brief surplus aside, the government’s shortfall remains substantial, with one-off revenue boosts from tariffs unable to contain the impact of persistent, broad-based spending growth. As the Treasury’s figures show, even months of record customs collections have done little to slow the pace of red ink.

'Gloom' over Trump economy hits worst levels 'since the Great Recession': report

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speak during a tour of the Federal Reserve Board building, which is currently undergoing renovations, in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 24, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura/File Photo

Alex Henderson

August 16, 2025

ALTERNET

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), unemployment in the United States was at 4.2 percent in July — which is far from a recession. But the BLS also found that the U.S. is hurting in terms of job creation; the 4.2 percent figure largely reflects Americans who are holding on to jobs they already have rather than starting new jobs. And President Donald Trump was so angry over the BLS' job creation data that he fired ex-BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer and nominated a MAGA loyalist for the position: E.J. Antoni, known for his work with the Heritage Foundation.

In an article published on August 16, Axios' Courtenay Brown lays out some reasons why so many Americans are feeling "gloomy" about the economy.

"Americans haven't been this gloomy about the job market since the Great Recession," Brown reports. "Why it matters: Fears about joblessness have surged since President Trump unveiled plans to impose steep tariffs on foreign goods. The economy might have hit a soft patch, but it has so far dodged the bleak predictions from a few months ago."

READ MORE: 'Pathetic and utterly irresponsible': Melania Trump slammed for 'weak performative stunt'

Nonetheless, Brown notes that "consumers are still bracing for the worst to come."

"As of early August," Brown explains, "that pessimism was in step with that of the 2008 financial crisis. About 62 percent of consumers believe unemployment will worsen in the year ahead, according to the University of Michigan's latest monthly survey. That's bounced around a little in the last few months, but consistently hung around levels not seen since the Great Recession…. The concerns about higher unemployment are paired with worries about an inflation resurgence."

The University of Michigan's consumer report was released on August 15.

Joanne Hsu, the report's director, is quoted as saying, "Although CPI inflation has not surged, our data show that consumers are still bracing for an increase in inflation to come. Moreover, consumers are also concerned that labor markets will weaken."

READ MORE: 'Trolling the president': How the myth of Trump's mental fitness has finally been revealed

Brown notes that The Great Recession was the United States' "worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

When the stock market crashed in 1929, U.S. unemployment was only 3.2 percent, according to Investopedia. By 1932, it was up to 23 percent. Americans were so angry about the economy that year that Democratic presidential nominee Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated incumbent GOP President Herbert Hoover by a landslide and picked up a whopping 472 electoral votes.

The Great Recession wasn't as severe as The Great Depression, but Brown recalls that in late 2008 and 2009, "The stock market was falling off a cliff, unemployment filings soared and the jobless rate would ultimately peak at 10 percent."

Brown continues, "Now: The economy is slowing, though fears are worse than the official data suggests so far. The unemployment rate is holding at a historically low 4.2 percent, as of July. Hiring has stalled, but so have layoffs. There are fewer unemployment filings now than in July 2021, when a record-low share of Americans (14 percent) said they anticipated higher unemployment in the year ahead."

Read Courtenay Brown's full report for Axios at this link.

The Politics of Pushing the US to Become a “Christian Nation”

Nick Licata

 August 14, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Last month, a small brick was removed from our Constitutional wall that separates the state and church. The New York Times’s investigative reporters reported in July 2025 that the Internal Revenue Service carved out an exemption from what is referred to as Congress’s 1954 Johnson Amendment in nonprofit law, which bans nonprofits from endorsing candidates.

The IRS joined plaintiffs in asking a federal judge to block this and all future administrations from enforcing the ban, specifically that churches endorse candidates from the pulpit. This exemption did not extend to other non-profit organizations.

The IRS decision responds to efforts, like those of the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) over the past fifteen years, to challenge the constitutionality of this law in court based on the constitutional right to free speech. They proclaim that they are “protecting their God-given right to speak freely and live out their faith, threatened by radical activists in government, education, and the wider culture who would subvert the God-designed role for families.”

Current House Speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, a former senior legal counsel with the ADF, said in 2008, “I think we would defend that as a constitutional right to free speech” in advocating that pastors be able to endorse candidates from their pulpits. However, Diane Yentel, president of the National Council of Nonprofits, representing 30,000 of them, believed that this IRS ruling was “not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws.” Yentel warned that allowing tax-exempt groups to endorse candidates could lead to “opening the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates.” Meanwhile, they can receive generous tax breaks by contributing to churches whose views may be shared by only a portion of the voters.

Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, has studied how churches are regulated in their political activities. He believes that the IRS’s decision will encourage future politicians to promote religious objectives because, “It also says to all candidates and parties, ‘Hey, time to recruit some churches.’”

IRS’s court action weakens the principle of “separation of church and state,” which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson by many, including Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. He wrote in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that, “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”

America’s history is marked by ongoing tension between spiritual and secular forces that shape how a democratic republic should function to serve the needs and protect the freedoms of all citizens. This tension stems from the principles embodied in our Constitution.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution includes two clauses that must be balanced. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and its second clause is the Free Exercise Clause, which says that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”The second clause is used by conservative religious leaders and many Republicans to advocate for allowing religions to play a significant role in passing laws that are promoted as protecting families and fostering a healthy spiritual environment.

These laws promote their beliefs while ignoring those of other citizens who do not share them. Consequently, some citizens could be punished for breaking what essentially is a religious law, not a secular law meant to protect everyone’s freedoms.There are many instances of laws being passed. One of the less burdensome ones was the Blue Laws, which banned the sale of alcohol on Sundays. However, there are others that are simply unenforceable because most citizens do not agree with them.

Passing the Eighteenth Amendment and Congress enacting the Volstead Act, which imposed Prohibition on all citizens, is a prime example of religious fervor demanding adherence to a noble virtue. Due to organized efforts by the religiously driven Anti-Saloon League and allied Protestant and Catholic churches, Congress overwhelmingly ratified the Eighteenth Amendment with a 68 percent supermajority in the House of Representatives and 76 percent support in the Senate. Toward the end of the 13-year Prohibition, with the passage of the new 21st Constitutional Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, there was widespread public alcohol consumption. Although public safety was the utmost objective of the Prohibition, more deaths occurred during it than before it began or after it ended.

One hundred years later, another major religious-led effort is underway to ban abortions. This law is unlikely to be widely enforced unless law enforcement increases its arrests. In the case of prohibiting abortions, the public opposes this move even more than banning public alcohol consumption. In both scenarios, religious beliefs and political opinions have been and continue to be protected as free expression from pulpits. However, endorsing candidates for public office from the pulpit might be seen as a form of religious instruction, which blurs the boundary between church and state.

Demarcating the authority of the church from the state has been a long-standing issue, dating back to the country’s founding. Only four of the original 13 colonies were established on the principle of complete religious freedom, with no official state church. Although this process was gradual, religious tolerance allowed the practice of various Christian denominations and some Jewish communities. However, public funds were used to support churches in most of the colonies.

Following European tradition, some of the early state constitutions required officeholders or voters to take an oath affirming their adherence to the major principles of the established church in their state. This practice was rejected when the founders wrote Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits taking such oaths to secure a national office.

While the Constitution clearly states that no religious practice can be mandated as a law applicable to everyone, there have been accommodations made to officially recognize certain religious practices and to tolerate religious expression in public spaces. Some of the earliest examples include adopting Christmas as a federal holiday since 1870 and the use of the Bible for presidents to take their oath of office, with only two not doing so.

This approach is known as accommodationism, which claims that the First Amendment can promote a beneficial relationship between religion and government. What some considered to go beyond mere accommodation was when Congress made significant changes in the 1950s.

A reference to God was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance: “… the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The national motto E pluribus unum (“Out of many, one”), which appeared on the dollar bill and our Great Seal of the United States, was replaced with “In God We Trust.” This change was challenged in court as a violation of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court ruled that it would be considered ceremonial deism , not religious in nature.

These changes stemmed from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)’s 6 to 3 decision in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), which supported accommodationism by stating that the nation’s “institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” and that government recognition of God does not amount to establishing a state church, which the Constitution forbids. As a result, SCOTUS has leaned toward adopting a key principle of accommodationism, interpreting the First Amendment as allowing government actions that promote religion, but not religious institutions.

One of the three dissenting Justices was Hugo Black, who is considered one of the strongest advocates for interpreting the Constitution through the conservative legal theories of textualism and originalism. In this instance, these theories were used to oppose the “liberal” theory of accommodationism, which would allow the government to be “friendly” with religion.

The question is, does accommodationism allow some religions, especially those with the most voters, to fund candidates who promote their religious beliefs? If so, doesn’t that make a church congregation act like a political party? Where is the wall that separates church and state?

This situation should lead citizens to question whether President Trump’s statements, along with those of his cabinet secretaries and Republican Congressional members, reflect the beliefs of a particular religion or if they represent those of a secular democratic government. The first restricts citizenship; the second broadens it to include everyone.

Often, Trump-appointed public officials refer to the Christian God, not just any deity. Are they promoting Christian beliefs or democratic principles? Are they redefining democracy’s freedoms as existing within a Christian society? If so, what happens to those who are not Christians in that society? Or to Christians who do not practice their faith? Here are two examples from public officials in the Trump administration to consider when answering those questions.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a CNN video on X that examined the beliefs of Doug Wilson, cofounder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). CREC promotes his views, as stated in the CNN report: “I’d like to see the nation be a Christian nation, and I’d like to see the world be a Christian world.” The Pentagon chief spokesman said Hegseth is “a proud member of a church” affiliated with CREC, and he “very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings.”

But does Hegseth cross the line from simply promoting belief in a single deity to acting as an acolyte of the Christian God? For instance, he uses taxpayers’ money to hold Christian prayer services inside a government building during working hours. If you want to get promoted by Hegseth, don’t you think you’d show up and be seen as a good Christian?

Meanwhile, Secretary Kristi Noem is framing her Department of Homeland Security’s actions as following the directives of the Bible. Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons from Interfaith Alliance points out DHS videos that boast of their mass deportation efforts using Bible verses. “As images of helicopters and tactical agents ominously scroll, the narrator says: ‘Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’ And I said, ‘Here am I; send me.'”

Does using text from the Bible suggest that the government is acting on God’s will? Isn’t this a religious belief? How does this align with a secular democratic government that isn’t dependent on approval from any church or religious book? These statements and actions from the Trump Administration should raise concerns among all citizens, regardless of their religion.

Once a republican government adopts the language, symbols, and beliefs of a religion, it becomes easy to take the next step: claiming that its authority comes from God. This signals the end of democracy because then the nation’s leaders determine what God wants from all of us.

That is why the founders of our republic aimed to separate church and state—to prevent the rise of another divine king. If a leader or political party claims they are accountable to God, aren’t they really most accountable to those who had the power to place them in office?

Today, billionaires, with their vast wealth, hold the most power to influence who leads the republic. As they collaborate with large religious groups, it is evident that this alliance of mutual expediency advances public policies that primarily benefit their interests, rather than those of the general public. Citizens need to ask themselves with this alliance guiding our nation—how will it end?

Nick Licata is author of Becoming A Citizen Activist, and has served 5 terms on the Seattle City Council, named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation, and is founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of 1,000 progressive municipal officials.

Trump:  Make America White Again

David Rosen

 August 14, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Donald Trump successfully championed anti-immigrant hysteria during his 2024 (re)election campaign … and it worked.  Once in office, immigration became the leading political issue of Trump’s presidency.  

The Department of Homeland Security’s claims a record arrests and deportations since Trump took office. In an April 28, 2025, press release, it claimed that immigration arrests and deportations had “already surpassed the entirety of Fiscal Year 2024 [numbers], and we’re just 100 days into this administration.” 

Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, stated in late May 2025 that the administration had deported around 200,000 people over four months; the Department of Homeland Security reported over 207,000 deportations as of June 11, 2025. The New York Times indicate over 200,000 deportations since Trump’s return to office.

Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) reports that the Trump administration recorded fewer than 932,000 deportations; other sources suggest a figure closer to 1.5 million deportations.

TRAC reports that “deportations during a similar period [February-May 2024] under President Joe Biden’s administration” 257,000 people were deported.  Pres. Barack Obama deported 3 million noncitizens over his two terms in office. This is, according to one source, “more than any other president in American history.”

In comparison, Pres. George Bush removed about 870,000 people; Pres. Bill Clinton, about 2 million; and Trump about 1.2 million people during his first term.

Trump, like many presidents and politicians before him, knowns that foreign and foreign-born Americans are a perfect target.  And U.S. history is the history of targeting the other as the enemy, often resulting in deportations and/or forced migrations.

+++

Americas were divided over slavery, not only whether it was immoral if not illegal, but whether to expand it from the South to the new states in the West (e.g., Kansas).  A decade before the Civil War started, the abolitionists were divided over what to do with the slave population, especially when they were freed.  In 1854, future president Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Peoria, IL, arguing:

“I should not know what to do as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.”

When in office in 1861, he ordered a secret trip to the isthmus of Chiriqui in the northern part of today’s Panama to assess the viability of relocating former slaves.  The land was owned by Ambrose Thompson, a wealthy shipbuilder from Philadelphia, who proposed it as a refuge for freed slaves.  As one source notes, “The slaves would work in the abundant coal mines on his property, the coal would be sold to the Navy, and the profits would go to the freed slaves to further build up their new land.”

Most insightful, Zaakir Tameez, a recent Yale Law School graduate, is quoted by New York Times op-ed writer Jamelle Bouie:

The colonization movement proposed abolishing slavery or winding it down over a period and then effectively deporting formerly enslaved people to Africa. The colonization societies could not imagine white and Black people living as equals in this country or African Americans being a political body in this country. So their proposal was just to mass deport them.

Before there were attacks on Mexican and Mexican Americans, Chinese immigrants were singled out.  In the spring of 1882, Congress passed — and Pres. Chester A. Arthur signed — the Chinese Exclusion Act. It banned Chinese immigrating from to the U.S. for ten years.

In the wake of California’s gold rush, thousand of Chinese people immigrated to the U.S. seeking a better life. Michael Luo, writing in The New Yorkers, notes that by 1880, “the Chinese population in the country exceeded a hundred and five thousand.”  He adds, by “the mid eighteen-eighties, during probably the peak of vigilantism, at least a hundred and sixty-eight communities forced their Chinese residents to leave. In one particularly horrific episode, in 1885, white miners in Rock Springs, in the Wyoming Territory, massacred at least twenty-eight Chinese miners and drove out several hundred others.”

Singling out still other immigrants, the U.S. undertook a series of select deportations as part of what’s recalled as the Palmer Raids conducted in November 1919 and January 1920.  Adam Hochschild, writing in The New Yorker, noted, it was “the country’s first mass deportation of political dissidents in the twentieth century.”

Pres. Woodrow Wilson ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to capture and arrest suspected radicals, especially anarchists and communists, and deport them. Palmer’s agents, led by J. Edgar Hoover, arrested nearly 10,000 people in seventy cities and deported nearly 600 people, including the anarchist Emma Goldman.

Trump’s rage against Mexican migrants is not the first of such campaign against Mexicans and Mexican Americans.  During the Depression, Pres. Herbert Hoover’s provocative slogan, “American jobs for real Americans,” kicked off a spate of local legislations banning employment of anyone of Mexican descent.  The majority of deportations occurred between 1930 and 1933 as police descended on workplaces, parks, hospitals and social clubs, arresting and dumping people across the border in trains and buses.

As the Guardian reports, “Nearly 2 million Mexican Americans, more than half U.S. citizens, were deported without due process. Families were torn apart, and many children never again saw their deported parents.”  Deportations took place in border states like California and Texas as well as heartland states like Michigan, Colorado, Illinois, Ohio and New York.

If deportation is one way to force unwanted people from the U.S., blocking immigrants is a way of keeping such people out. In June 1939, the German ocean liner St. Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish, were turned away from the port of Miami, forcing the ship to return to Europe; more than a quarter died in the Holocaust.

As the Smithsonian magazine reminds readers, Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt “repeated the unproven claims from his advisers that some Jewish refugees had been coerced to spy for the Nazis.” It then quotes FDR: 

“Not all of them are voluntary spies. It is rather a horrible story, but in some of the other countries that refugees out of Germany have gone to, especially Jewish refugees, they found a number of definitely proven spies.”

The belief that refugees posed a serious threat to national security was not limited to FDR but was shared by the State Department and the FBI.  Immigration restrictions tightened as the refugee crisis worsened. As the Smithsonian notes, “Wartime measures demanded special scrutiny of anyone with relatives in Nazi territories—even relatives in concentration camps.”

+++

What Trump and many others forget, America was never a “white” nation.

When the first Europeans, be they Spanish in St. Augustine, FL; the Dutch carrying enslaved Africans to Jamestown around 1619; or the English in New England, arrived in what is today’s American, the country was already populated with indigenous peoples.  Enormous efforts were made to irradicate the Native peoples including horrendous wars, mass displacements and forced colonization on reservations.  Native peoples didn’t receive citizenship until 1924.

Often forgotten, at the time of the Revolution, the total population was approximately 2.6 million, of which 566,000 were of African descent and 90 percent were enslaved. As of 2024, the U.S. was a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society of 332 million people.  It was a mixture of non-Hispanic whites = 58.4 percent; Hispanic/Latinos = 19.5 percent; Blacks = 13.7 percent; Asians = 6.4 percent;

Native American/Alaskans = 1.3 percent; and Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders = 0.3 percent.

In just two decades – in 2045 – the U.S. will become “minority majority” nation. During that year, whites will comprise only 49.7 percent of the population.

This well may be freaking out Trump and other white nationalists. He inherited more than money and a real-estate business from his father, Fred Trump.  Father Trump, like his son, did not serve during war – in Trump senior’s case, WW-II — but made a fortune from the postwar housing boom. Few remember that in 1927, Trump the elder was arrested with six other racists at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Queens, NY.  Senior Trump, 21 at the time, was a long-time racialist and, like his son, a real-estate conman.  

On Memorial Day 1927, supporters of Mussolini’s Italian fascism and Klansmen rioted in the Bronx, killing two Italian men.  In Queens, 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through Trump’s Jamaica neighborhood, and he was busted.  The white nationalist confronted 100 policemen and, as a local report claimed, “staged a free-for-all.”  Trump senior reportedly wore a Klan robe and, while arrested, no charges were brought against him.

Marx once noted, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”  But what if history repeats itself a third or fourth time? 

David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion:  The Transformation of 1950s New York’s Forbidden into America’s New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015).  He can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com.