Opinion

Why Trump's 'America First' Strategy Could Literally Make America Sick

Jonathan Cohn
Fri, January 24, 2025


Pulling out of international climate treaties. Disrupting long-standing alliances. Ripping up trade agreements.

Donald Trump has spent his political career promising to do all of these things and, now that he’s back in the White House, he’s already on his way towards accomplishing them. In just the first few days since taking office, he has ordered the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords, announced his intention to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and continued to make noises about taking back the Panama Canal.

There’s plenty more to come. As Trump sees it, the U.S. is in constant competition with ― and facing constant threats from ― other countries. It’s a nearly Hobbesian worldview in which there’s rarely common good to be found, or mutual benefit to cooperation. It’s what he means when he vows, as he did in Monday’s Inaugural address, that “during every single day of the Trump administration, I will, very simply, put America first.”

Trump is by no means the first American politician to talk or to think this way. But he’s the first to make this posture the official policy of the U.S. government — at least since the end of World War II, when U.S. leaders led the effort to create the agreements and relationships that Trump is trying to tear down.

They did so in part because, after a worldwide economic depression and two horrific world wars, they had come to believe that more cooperation among countries would ultimately make the U.S. richer and safer. Seven decades of progress, prosperity and (relative) peace suggest they were largely right.

That doesn’t mean global connectedness have always worked out to the benefit of Americans, or the rest of the world for that matter. That is why, for example, even defenders of international organizations like the United Nations have called for major reforms ― or why even many promoters of freer trade support initiatives that would protect U.S. workers from low-wage competition.

President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C.

 Anna Moneymaker via Getty Images

But Trump has in mind a much more radical shift. And maybe no single Trump decision better illustrates his intentions than his order pulling the U.S. out of the World Health Organization ― a move that, public health experts told me this week, is fraught with danger.


They don’t simply worry that withdrawing from WHO could undermine a vital international agency. They also fear that it will endanger Americans, making the nation more vulnerable to deadly diseases and new pandemics. And they make a compelling case.

What The WHO Does, How It Came To Be

WHO is a United Nations sub-agency charged with promoting better health around the world. It dates to 1948, although its conceptual origins go back to the 19th century, when increases in global shipping created concerns about the spread of disease from dockworkers and locals to mariners, who would then take illnesses with them to other ports.

“Preventing and controlling outbreaks is not just about the health of communities but also about economics and national security,” Preeti Malani, an infectious disease professor at the University of Michigan, told me.

The concern led to a series of agreements including the 1892 International Sanitary Convention and 1926 International Maritime Sanitary Convention. These agreements set early, rudimentary standards for how to report outbreaks and when to impose quarantines.

The establishment of WHO accelerated and strengthened these efforts — by, among other things, creating systems for global sharing of disease data, launching worldwide vaccination campaigns and coordinating responses to outbreaks. WHO played an essential role in the eradication of smallpox, by most accounts, and in the near-eradication of polio.

That kind of work is still going on today, as is the response to sudden health threats. Just a few months ago, WHO coordinated what now looks like a successful effort to contain and then wipe out an outbreak of Marburg virus in Rwanda. It’s an awful disease that leads to bleeding, severe vomiting, neurological issues and eventually a painful death. But in the end there were just 66 reported illnesses and 15 fatalities, and within three months the lack of new cases allowed local officials to declare the outbreak over.

Midwife Maima Johnson hands a newborn girl to mother Cecelia Mensah, 20, after delivering the child at the Star of the Sea Health Center on January 29, 2015, in the West Point township of Monrovia, Liberia. Midwives and health workers in the clinic had taken extra precautions throughout Liberia's Ebola epidemic to avoid becoming infected. 

John Moore via Getty Images

“We found out about it quickly, and that was the way the warning system is supposed to work, and precautions were taken,” says Jennifer Kates, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy for the nonpartisan research organization KFF. “These are not things that the average American is going to always feel, but that’s partially because the system is designed to try to contain outbreaks when they happen.”

Back in 2014, WHO wasn’t as successful at stopping an outbreak of Ebola, a closely related virus, that started in the western part of Africa before spreading to Europe and the U.S. Both at the time and later, experts faulted WHO for not raising alarms about the appearance of the disease earlier. But it was still WHO that coordinated the subsequent international response, whose success at preventing the virus from killing many more people won widespread acclaim.

“WHO emergency teams were on the ground, they were isolating cases, they were providing health care,” Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health law at Georgetown University, told me. “They did the contact tracing and eventually stopped the pandemic in its tracks.”

Infectious pathogens don't stop at borders.

Preeti Malani, University of Michigan

Of course, it’s WHO’s role in COVID-19 that has generated most of the controversy recently ― and, relatedly, has drawn Trump’s ire. From the earliest weeks of the pandemic, back in 2020, a variety of researchers and officials have blamed WHO for not putting more pressure on China to disclose information about the disease’s origins and initial spread.

Trump, famously looking for people and institutions to blame, picked up on these criticisms and actually initiated the withdrawal process, which under U.S. law takes one year. President Joe Biden reversed that order upon taking office, but now Trump has reinstated it, citing “the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China” as a reason.

Trump has also complained that WHO membership costs so much money. The U.S. is the organization’s single biggest funder, with its roughly $1.3 billion in contributions over the 2022-23 period accounting for about 16% of the total WHO budget.

During a Monday evening press conference, as he signed executive orders, Trump said “WHO ripped us off.” Among those orders was the one restarting the yearlong withdrawal process, which means the U.S. is now on track to leave the organization in January 2026.

The WHO Without The U.S.

Even defenders of WHO say it has serious flaws, starting with the kind of excessive deference to strong member nations that WHO showed to China over COVID-19. Other problems include the bureaucratic inefficiency endemic to large international organizations, as well as a financial burden on the U.S. that even some committed globalists think other economically advanced countries could do more to share.

“I think it’s really important to recognize that the challenges that the Trump administration is trying to address are real,” Judd Walson, a professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me.

And while an effort to address some of those issues has been underway, in the form of a new worldwide pandemic treaty the Biden administration was negotiating, it has already drawn objections from many on the political right. According to these critics, the emerging treaty is either too weak (because it would still allow a country like China to get away with withholding information) or too strong (because it would require the U.S. to comply with new demands for information) or both.

But Trump isn’t looking to alter the terms of that treaty, or propose some other way of improving WHO. He’s talking about withdrawing altogether. And while his executive order calls on his national security staff to find other ways of addressing global health, few public health experts think that’s realistic.

“The U.S. has probably more technical expertise than any other nation in the world on health, it has the largest economy, and so in many ways it really can operate on its own more than any other country,” said Kates. “However, it can’t do everything on its own.”

Gostin was even more forceful: “President Trump is living in Fantasyland. You can’t replace the singular global health organization that’s been the center of global health for more than 75 years. And if he thinks we can ― that we are stronger by going it alone ― he’s badly mistaken. It’s very clear our domestic capabilities can’t replace a worldwide network of surveillance and response.”

A simple, practical way U.S. withdrawal could hamper future outbreak responses is by making communication more difficult. One of WHO’s most important functions is creating standards and expectations for the precise kinds of data member nations should provide, and then creating mechanisms for sharing it in real time.

In theory, Walson said, nations could still provide and share information on their own. In reality, he said, it’s not going to happen seamlessly or quickly if the channels for communication don’t exist already: “There are technical challenges, like who exactly in these other countries is going to provide the data … who do they approach in the U.S. about it.”

The thing that makes us weaker is just to take all our marbles and go home.

Lawrence Gostin, Georgetown University

But probably the biggest single worry among these experts is that without U.S. leadership and money, the organization would simply not be able to do as much. It’s even possible U.S. withdrawal would set off a chain reaction in which other powerful countries start pulling back as well ― until, eventually, WHO is a shell of its former itself, with nothing similar replacing it.

“If that happens ... then the whole goal of having global cooperation at times of crisis in particular really gets affected,” said Kates. “You can see that playing out ― now there’s no global cooperation, we’re all in it for ourselves. And then that’s like a dystopian movie.”

As an example of what that dystopia might look like, Walson imagined another outbreak of Ebola or Marburg in a small West African country without the resources to identify, track or contain the virus on its own. The first reports of fever would come in, but they’d struggle to figure out whether it was just another normally circulating disease like malaria or something worse ― and, once they understood the threat, it would take them time to mount a response.

It could be devastating for the country and, as past outbreaks have shown, potentially devastating for the rest of the world too. “People are moving, leaving their country to go work in a neighboring country,” Walson said. “They’re going into airports where they’re in contact with business travelers, who then fly into a European country and meet their American counterpart at a meeting in Davos or in London.”

“Infections spread quickly, so our inability to know that there’s a potential threat, to assess the threat and to help respond and contain that threat, will have immediate and direct consequences for our security,” Walson said.
What The WHO Means To The U.S.

One way WHO could weather a U.S. withdrawal would be to lean more on other powerful nations, although doing so would likely empower China ― the very nation Trump sees as America’s chief adversary ― and leave the U.S. with even less influence over global health policies.

“The thing that makes us weaker is just to take all our marbles and go home, because whenever there is a vital public health decision around the world to be made, the U.S. will be on the outside looking in,” Gostin said.

And while the longstanding U.S. support for WHO may seem to critics like a naïve attempt at creating a utopian global community, Walson says, it’s actually a recognition that the world is full of suspicious and hostile powers ― and that, when it comes to health, mutual survival depends on getting past that.

“We are viewed as a major and important actor in the global health space ― and that trust and belief that we do it not only for ourselves, but that we do it for the community as a whole, has consequences,” Walson said. “There is a level of willingness to engage that allows us to work with countries that otherwise we would not be able to work with effectively, because of that level of trust.”

This is obviously not the perspective of Trump, whose views on the world as a competition for dominance sounds a lot like some of the prevailing sentiments of the 19th century. As Walson noted, those worries about maritime trade spreading disease came from the colonial powers because they were the ones dispatching the ships.

Leaders of those nations embraced international cooperation over health largely out of self-interest: They didn’t want to bring illness back home. Later the same impulse helped lead to the creation of other international organizations and agreements, covering everything from trade to security.

Now those arrangements are in Trump’s crosshairs, and many will not survive. But ”infectious pathogens don’t stop at borders,” as Malani put it. Trump may succeed in pulling the U.S. out of global health organizations. That doesn’t mean the crises they’re meant to address will stop.

Facing Backlash Over Firing Its Meteorologists, Allen Media Group Learns an Important Lesson: Take the ‘Local’ Out of Local TV At Your Own Peril

Michael Schneider

VARIETY
Sat, January 25, 2025 

Handing out pink slips to dozens of beloved small-market local TV news weathercasters would be ill-advised even in the best of times. But to do it right as unpredictable and dangerous weather disasters tear across the country this month — from wildfires in California to a historic freeze in the south — was particularly tone deaf.

And yet, that’s what Allen Media Group did last week, announcing that it would be getting rid of trusted local weather anchors in a cost-saving move. The idea was to just feed forecasts from its Weather Channel hub in Atlanta to the company’s stations across the country. Allen Media Group said it might move some of its local meteorologists to Atlanta, but for the most part your local forecast would now be handled by someone hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away from the community served by the station.

Local News Audiences Doubled and Even Tripled During L.A. Fire Coverage

In a press release, the Allen Media Group — which owns 27 television stations across the country, in addition to the Weather Channel and other outlets — attempted to spin it as a big win for viewers: “This initiative aims to transform the way local weather is reported — ensuring the most accurate, timely, and engaging forecasts for communities across the country,” Allen Media Group said. What it didn’t elaborate on was the local layoffs that would ensue. Allen Media Group declined to give a number on how many people were affected.

But Allen Media Group was clearly not ready for viewers to see right through that explanation. And they somehow forgot how personally attached news viewers are to their local weathercasters. These TV personalities are superstars in their local markets, often because they’ve been the most important source of information when weather gets scary. They know exactly where that tornado is hitting, where the winds are blowing and who’s in the path of danger because they live there too. Not some meteorologist in Atlanta.

I also don’t think they expected so many farewells from their local stations would go viral. I found myself tearing up at a goodbye from Allen Media Group’s Terre Haute, Ind., station WTHI-TV anchors Patrece Dayton and Kevin Orpurt. I had never heard of them, and I’ve never been to Terre Haute, but I could immediately see why that town loved these two — and weren’t happy with the decision to can them.

That was repeated with both weathercasters and other anchors all over Allen Media Group stations around the country as stations underwent another brutal round of layoffs. That’s not just an Allen Media Group problem, it’s a journalism problem, period, as both national and local news outlets make drastic cuts — right when we need them the most.

Allen Media Group, of course, isn’t the only TV station group to make drastic cuts by centralizing operations — Sinclair, CBS, Gray Media and others have done variations of the same in recent years. These cost-cutting moves are a disappointing financial reality given a soft advertising marketplace and audiences turning their attention away from TV. It’s also happening in newspapers, of course.

But what’s lost in these moves to centralize coverage is the local expertise and nuance that comes with having your boots on the ground, knowing the intricacies of your community and having a personal relationship with viewers. Ironically, removing all of that will only hasten the demise of local media as we know it. What is more local than the daily weather forecast? Stripping away the very selling point that still makes broadcast valuable — its live, local nature — may help save a few coins in the short run, but it’s a recipe for obsolescence in the long term.

As I recently wrote, the L.A. fires here reminded us of the importance of local media in an age where social media has become in large part a worthless firehose of lies, conspiracy theories and hate. And things are just going to get worse under the new regime in Washington, D.C. — one that rewards those lies and covers up truth.

When it comes to weather, the effects of climate change will also only make our environment more dangerous and unpredictable in the coming years. This is a public safety issue, and broadcast stations carry an FCC license that requires some responsibility to operate in the public interest. Firing your meteorologists and beaming in reports from Atlanta is the opposite of that.

Byron Allen has proven himself to be a savvy entrepreneur in building Allen Media Group into a diversified company with assets across broadcast, cable, streaming and film distribution. Of late, he’s also known for making billion-dollar bids on media companies, so he has the resources. And according to some local media reports, Allen Media Group may be reconsidering the mass weathercaster layoff and looking to bring some of them back after advertisers also objected. Requests for comment to Allen Media Group have gone unreturned, so it’s unclear how many staffers may or may not be keeping their jobs. But this has been a lesson for all broadcasters: Take the “local” out of local TV at your own peril.

The list of major US  companies laying off staff in the new year, including CNN, Meta, Microsoft, and BP

Dominick Reuter,Ashley Stewart,Shubhangi Goel,Sarah Jackson,Pete Syme,Jyoti Mann,Lakshmi Varanasi,Katie Balevic
Fri, January 24, 2025 

Microsoft is planning job cuts in the new year.

RICCARDO MILANI/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

Job cuts are continuing into 2025 following waves of reductions last year.


Companies such as Meta, Microsoft, BlackRock, and BP are conducting layoffs.


See the list of companies letting workers go in 2025.

Layoffs and other workforce reductions are continuing in 2025, following two years of significant job cuts across tech, media, finance, manufacturing, retail, and energy.


While the reasons for slimming staff vary, the cost-cutting measures are coming amid a backdrop of technological change. In a recent World Economic Forum survey, some 41% of companies worldwide said they expected to reduce their workforces over the next five years because of the rise of artificial intelligence.

Companies such as CNN, Dropbox, and IBM have previously announced job cuts related to AI. Tech jobs in big data, fintech, and AI are meanwhile expected to double by 2030, according to the WEF.

Here are the companies with job cuts planned or already underway in 2025 so far.

CNN plans to cut 200 jobs.

CNN is cutting staff in a bid to focus the business on its digital news services.Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Cable news giant CNN is cutting about 200 television-focused roles as part of a digital pivot. The cuts will amount to about 6% of the company's workforce.

In a memo sent to staff on Thursday, CNN's CEO Mark Thompson said he aimed to "shift CNN's gravity towards the platforms and products where the audience themselves are shifting and, by doing that, to secure CNN's future as one of the world's greatest news organizations."

Starbucks is planning layoffs in March.

Starbucks is planning layoffs as part of a corporate restructuring.

ANGELA WEISS / AFP via Getty Images

Global coffee chain Starbucks announced it is planning layoffs in March.

In a memo to staff on January 21, Brian Nicoll, the company's chairman and CEO, said: "We need to meaningfully change how our support teams are organized and how we work," and as part of that, "we will have job eliminations and smaller support teams moving forward."

Nicoll said the changes would be communicated to staff by early March.

Stripe is laying off 300 employees.

Stripe is cutting 300 jobs, according to a memo obtained by BI.

Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Payments platform Stripe is cutting 300 employees, primarily in product, engineering, and operations, according to a January 20 memo obtained by BI.

Chief People Officer Rob McIntosh said in the memo that the company still planned on growing its head count to about 10,000 employees by the end of the year.

BP slashing 7,700 staff and contractor positions worldwide.

Oil giant BP is cutting thousands of jobs.

John Keeble/Getty Images

BP told Business Insider it plans to cut 4,700 staff and 3,000 contractors, amounting to about 5% of its global workforce.

The cuts are part of a program to "simplify and focus" BP that began last year.

"We are strengthening our competitiveness and building in resilience as we lower our costs, drive performance improvement and play to our distinctive capabilities," the company said.

Meta is cutting 5% of its workforce.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees the company is targeting "low-performers," BI reported on Jan 14.Fabrice COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently told staff he "decided to raise the bar on performance management" and will act quickly to "move out low-performers," according to an internal memo seen by BI.

In a post on the company's internal communications platform, he said Meta will make "more extensive performance-based cuts" in this year's performance review cycle. Impacted US employees will be notified on February 10, he wrote.

The company has laid off more than 21,000 workers since 2022.

BlackRock is cutting 1% of its workforce.

BlackRock was recently reported to be planning layoffs

Eric Thayer/Reuters

BlackRock told employees it was planning to cut about 200 people of its 21,000-strong workforce, according to Bloomberg.

The reductions are more than offset by some 3,750 workers who were added last year and another 2,000 expected to be added in 2025.

BlackRock's president, Rob Kapito, and its chief operating officer, Rob Goldstein, said the cuts would help realign the firm's resources with its strategy, Bloomberg reported.

Bridgewater has cut about 90 staff.

Bridgewater's layoffs will return its head count to where it was in 2023, a person familiar with the matter said.Bridgewater Associates

Bridgewater Associates cut 7% of its staff in January in an effort to stay lean, a person familiar with the matter told Business Insider.

The layoffs at the world's largest hedge fund bring its head count back to where it was in 2023, the person said.

The company's founder, Ray Dalio, said in a 2019 interview that about 30% of new employees were leaving the firm within 18 months.

The Washington Post is cutting 4% of its non-newsroom workforce.

The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is conducting layoffs in January.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Washington Post is eliminating less than 100 employees in an effort to cut costs, Reuters reported in January.

A spokesperson told the wire service that the changes would occur across multiple areas of the business and indicated that the cuts wouldn't affect the newsroom.

"The Washington Post is continuing its transformation to meet the needs of the industry, build a more sustainable future and reach audiences where they are," the spokesperson said, according to Reuters.

Microsoft is planning an unspecified number of cuts.

   

Microsoft confirmed that job cuts were planned.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Microsoft is planning job cuts soon, and the company is taking

 

 harder look at underperforming employees as part of the reductions, according to two people familiar with the plans.

A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed cuts but declined to share details on the number of employees being let go.

"At Microsoft we focus on high performance talent," the spokesperson said. "We are always working on helping people learn and grow. When people are not performing, we take the appropriate action."

Ally is cutting less than 5% of workers.

Ally is laying off about 500 employees.

Ally Bank/Facebook

The digital-financial-services company Ally is laying off roughly 500 of its 11,000 employees, a spokesperson confirmed to BI.

"As we continue to right-size our company, we made the difficult decision to selectively reduce our workforce in some areas, while continuing to hire in our other areas of our business," the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson also said the company was offering severance, out-placement support, and the opportunity to apply for openings at Ally.

Ally made a similar level of cuts in October 2023, the Charlotte Observer reported.

Adidas plans to cut up to 500 jobs in Germany.

Despite a strong year, Adidas is planning job cuts.J

akub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Adidas intends to reduce the size of its workforce at its headquarters in Herzogenaurach, Germany, impacting up to 500 jobs, CNBC reported.

If fully executed, it amounts to a reduction of nearly 9% at the company headquarters, which employs about 5,800 employees, according to the Adidas website.

The news comes shortly after the company announced it had outperformed its profit expectations at the end of 2024, touting "better-than-expected" results in the fourth quarter.

"Strong growth across all regions and divisions proves the good job our teams are doing across regions and functions," CEO Bjørn Gulden said in a press release. "So although we are not yet where we want to be long term, I am very happy with this development which was much better than we had expected."


In a statement to BI, an Adidas spokesperson said the company had grown "too complex because of our current operating model."

"To set adidas up for long-term success," the spokesperson said, "we are now starting to look at how we align our operating model with the reality of how we work. This may have an impact on the organizational structure and number of roles based at our HQ in Herzogenaurach."

The company said it is not a cost-cutting measure and that it could not confirm concrete numbers.

Business Insider

More Job Cuts Loom After UK Firms Run Down Covid Coffers

(Bloomberg) -- UK businesses have run down a mountain of cash reserves built up during the pandemic, leaving them more likely to cut jobs when Labour’s tax hikes come into effect in April.

Firms added over £150 billion ($185 billion) to their savings when the economy was placed under Covid restrictions, thanks to a mix of loans and large-scale public-sector support. Corporate coffers reached almost double the value of their quarterly wage bills, according to a Bloomberg analysis of official data.

However, most of those excess reserves are now gone. Firms tapped into them during the cost-of-living crisis to keep up with inflation-busting pay rises, including double-digit increases in the minimum wage, and high borrowing costs. The ratio of savings to payroll bills is now back to its pre-pandemic level of just above 1.5.

“It’s the corporate equivalent of households’ excess savings being eroded by high inflation last year,” said Matt Swannell, chief economic adviser to the EY ITEM Club. “With some reserves, it’s easier to keep hold of staff even if they are expensive. In real terms though, if your savings have depleted, that becomes harder to do.”

Businesses complained vociferously after Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves increased a payroll tax by around £26 billion a year in her Oct. 30 budget. Reeves has insisted the tax rise will go ahead in April, blaming the previous Conservative government for leaving a £22 billion hole in the public finances.

Firms have already started to reduce headcount, as they brace not only for the hike in national insurance contributions, but also a third consecutive increase in the minimum wage that also takes effect in April.

The pace of job-cutting in January and December was the fastest since the wake of the financial crisis, barring the pandemic, according to a purchasing-management survey published by S&P Global on Friday. A day earlier supermarket giant J Sainsbury Plc announced 3,000 roles are to go — including a 20% reduction in senior management — and that all of its remaining in-store cafes will close.

HM Revenue & Customs data through December show private-sector employers have shed over 150,000 employees since Labour took office last July, including 70,000 since the budget. Workers in hospitality, retail and manufacturing have borne the brunt.


The run of bad economic headlines provides a bleak backdrop for Reeves as she prepares for a major speech this week on growth, which she has described as her “number one mission.” The economy is smaller than before Labour came to power.

The numbers also pile pressure on the Bank of England to cut interest rates further, with the post-pandemic trend of “hoarding” staff in the face of weak demand now apparently over. Its newest rate-setter, Alan Taylor, recently warned of a “hard landing” and recession for the UK if officials act too slowly.

“There is scope for increased unemployment going forward,” Swannell said.

Bloomberg Businessweek

Opinion

MAGA's true believers don't understand capitalism — Trump will teach them a hard lesson

Rich Logis

SALON

Sun, January 26, 2025 

Donald Trump Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

America is a nation at war with its mythologies.

For all the electoral postmortems about the desire for economic change, what’s unsurprisingly absent is what seems, to me, an obvious omission: an all-enveloping misunderstanding of American capitalism.

I’m not dismissing the importance of anxiety about solvency, about the challenges that small businesses face (I’m a proprietor of one myself) and about the cost of future entitlements. (We’ll get to the problems of liberalism in a bit). Most of us in this country will worry about money for the duration of our lives.

One delusional mythology about American capitalism that has been instilled in We the People is that we somehow have a guaranteed right to prosperity; this imaginary right has been deployed by politicians who are afraid of educating their constituents about how our model of commerce actually works. Our national press has largely been lazy on this score as well.

With due respect to the many Americans who voted for Donald Trump, their overwhelming sense of entitlement dwarfs that of the hard-working immigrants who cut their grass, scrub pots and pans in the restaurants they frequent, and care for their kids and elderly loved ones. Too many Americans have come to believe they are owed financial comfort and material abundance, not to mention eggs and gasoline at predictable prices.

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Frankly, it’s an illogical question in a capitalist nation. Some people are of course worse off, and I don’t mean to make light of that. But in fact, many millions are better off; Joe Biden’s administration oversaw the recovery of millions of jobs lost during the COVID pandemic and the creation of millions more. Some people out there will be worse off by the time they finish this article than when they commenced reading it. I’m not being flippant; that’s reality.

Welcome to capitalism, a system whose proponents always cite unequal outcomes as a reason for extolling it.

So eggs are expensive? Eat fewer of them. Cut down on egg whites. Let them eat yolks.

Are gas prices high? Is insurance for health care, real estate and vehicles increasing? Are supply chain constraints harming your livelihood, or your quality of life? The person in the White House has very little to do with that. Let’s recall that gas prices steadily increased during George W. Bush’s second term.

Gas was cheap in 2020 because — hello! — tens of millions of drivers weren’t driving. In fact, Trump threatened the Saudis, in the early days of the pandemic: Cut oil production, or lose U.S. military support. Why? More oil flooding the market would have driven prices still lower, and “cheap gas” does not sound like “ka-ching.”

Welcome to the “laws” of supply and demand, which all of us must navigate on a daily basis. If you don’t know or don’t remember these details, ask yourself why you don’t. If you’re a Trump voter, then ask yourself whether you might have voted differently in November had you been aware.

Meanwhile, we have endless debates about whether needs — access to medical care, food, affordable housing — should be rights, or should be left to the exigencies of good luck and near-perfect health.

Jeremiads about grocery prices are now an acceptable element of political discourse and, per GOP logic, we have a right to complain about them. Feeding the hungry, though? That edges too close to pinko communism. But the point our fellow countrymen and women should grasp is that presidents, whoever they are, have very little control over inflation.

You know what my wife and I did when household costs became too onerous last year? We reduced our expenses, and adjusted our quality of life.

That’s, you know, fiscal conservatism: Tightening the belts, practicing austerity, living within our means, limiting debt. We didn’t literally pull ourselves up by the bootstraps or walk to school through the snow without shoes. But isn’t that the American mythos?
Deep-state capitalism

In 2015 and 2016, even though I was doing better financially than at any time in my life, Donald Trump’s populist campaign resonated with me. I knew others who had lost their jobs and contracts to offshoring. Years before he ran for office, Trump talked about the dangers of competition with low-wage Asian nations, in particular; when I’d heard him speak, I nodded in concurrence.

But here’s what I never thought about at the time: I and other angry Americans hadn’t grasped that offshoring to increase profits was a central feature of capitalism, as advocated by both parties — but in particular by the mythologizers of capitalism on the Republican side.

So I’ll pose almost the same question nearly a decade later: What do Trump voters, and especially true believers in the MAGA community, of which I was once a full member, think capitalism is?

We legislate against some of the baser traits of our nature: incitement, theft, violence. Our laws aren’t entirely devoid of protections against avarice (such as antitrust regulations), but Americans, collectively and historically, have a high tolerance for greed.

There’s the mythology of capitalist meritocracy at work, which is still championed by many people who’ve been failed by both major political parties. Their concerns have been exploited and manipulated by Republicans who have traumatized them into believing that liberalism, rather than capitalism, is the source of their ills; that because of the evil policies of liberals, they keep working harder and harder but never seem to break even, much less get ahead.

Lest there be any confusion: I support capitalism. Entrepreneurship and innovation best advance in free markets.

But still: The rage I felt, even more acutely experienced today among the MAGA faithful, was perhaps warranted but rooted in ignorance. Trump was not wrong when he lamented the once-thriving communities ravaged and hollowed out by outsourcing. But his solution was no solution at all.

Now he has persuaded millions into believing that only he can successfully stymie the global and domestic capitalist forces that he did essentially nothing about during his first administration.

Why didn’t he do anything? Because Trump understands, in his own pedestrian way, that capitalism operates less on merit the higher one moves up in the hierarchy.

Trump is the most devoted “deep state” capitalist in American history, given the millions his businesses have earned in foreign payments. So much for thwarting the globalists. Want an argument for why the über-wealthy should pay more in taxes? If these money-hoarders could have gotten so rich in another country, they most certainly would have. Do we really believe this doesn’t apply to Trump?

Broadly speaking, the two core ideological dogmas within MAGA are: 1) liberalism is almost solely culpable for our national ills (second come the RINOs, or Republicans in Name Only, although it’s not close); and 2) Trump is the greatest fixer God ever created.

Most people who voted for Trump — especially the MAGA faithful — want and expect him, and by extension the federal government, to intervene in commerce. According to the classical definition, that would be socialism — or Marxism or communism, whichever epithet we are using today. The confusion is general, because it’s all mythological.

I cannot entirely fault those who are still looking for a hero or a superman who cuts through the noise and nonsense. The 2008 financial crisis and its brutal aftermath placed the ills of capitalism front and center, and begat an understandable skepticism in banks, government and other major institutions. What made that episode particularly deleterious, however, was not that we had too much regulation but too little; that laissez-faire ethos is rooted in the importance of land ownership, a central basis of American capitalism.

In fact, the notion that a singular person can serve as an economic savior and, in messianic fashion, usher in utopia, is much closer to a socialist-communist notion than a capitalist one. That surely does not mean the government should play no role in our economy; as mentioned above, the Biden administration oversaw remarkable growth. Trump and the Republicans, however, didn't actually campaign on any policy ideas aimed to increase economic mobility and opportunity. They benefited instead from the profoundly human delusion known as nostalgia.

People are looking for reasons why they seem to work more but keep falling behind. I sympathize; this resonates with me.

The answer is in front of us, and it is called capitalism, or at least the romantic mythology of capitalism. Our species makes sense of the world, in large part, through the stories we tell, and no country in world history is more defined by myths than the United States of America. All kinds of emotions inform those myths. MAGA believers like to tell their foes, “F**k your feelings,” but as someone who spent seven years within the MAGA movement, I can attest it is almost entirely driven by feelings. There is no logic that determines the tides and currents within the MAGA community; it took me an entire year to come to that epiphany.

Many on the political right choose to ignore that they already depend, or very soon will, on “socialist” safety-net programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Some part of the MAGA community is aware that the reforms brought by liberalism help to keep them alive.

In short, almost everyone is a liberal, when they need to be. Everyone is also a capitalist, or a socialist, when they need to be.

So what now?

There’s a lot of disbelief among liberals and Democrats about how so many Americans could simply overlook or ignore the public health crisis of gun violence, the loss of reproductive freedom (which affects men’s lives as well), the attacks on public education, and the marginalization and demonization of our LGBTQ+ population.

I have a slightly nuanced take here: I do think most Americans really do care about these issues — but they were all perceived in competition with the mythology of capitalism as the always-most-important American doctrine.

Mythology tends to be more persuasive than discussion of policy, which brings me to something the Democratic Party should post in all their workplaces: Americans don’t vote based on policy. Sure, some liberals do, given what we know about their news and information consumption. Information bubbles exist on the Democratic side, too, but liberal voters are far more likely to encounter a diversity of sources.

MAGA culture, on the other hand, likes to espouse rugged individualism, but is wholly conformist: Anything that even remotely seems to refute the mythologies that permeate the MAGA congregation is shunned. I had a term, during my time as a MAGA pundit, for much of what we maligned as propaganda: It was the Democrat Media Industrial Complex. The lie we told ourselves, central to our myth, was that we were independent-minded, not susceptible to being influenced.

MAGA’s ethos includes trauma, desperation, panic, despair, hopelessness and nihilism. What I want MAGA’s opponents to understand is that no one in the Trump movement came to imbibe that toxic mixture all on their own. I implore you to resist saying, “I told you so,” when Trump’s benefits are handed out exclusively to his rich buddies.

I am helping to build a new community for those who leave MAGA. When many such people have their Road to Damascus moment about the betrayal of Trump, as I did, we want to offer them an exit ramp out of MAGA. Blaming or castigating them only offers more incentive to remain within the MAGA circle. It may feel gratifying in the short term, but only creates more damage.

One of our biggest civic crises in America is that so many of our citizens lack basic comprehension of the governmental and economic model they live under, or, perhaps, they willfully deny it. This does not reflect a dearth of intelligence, and I would argue that it’s not even primarily a failure in education, although that’s part of it. More than anything, it reflects the fact that our actual elected representatives, at all levels, are petrified of their constituents and reluctant to have candid conversations about capitalism, for fear of losing their positions and being primaried out as communists, socialists, liberals and Marxists, or otherwise victimized by the toxic stew of GOP lies.

The inherent flaw of mythology is that it offers its own evidence and its own truth to the believer, and anything that contradicts it is denied.

As he did in 2017, Trump has been bequeathed a relatively stable economy, for now. Once he begins to destabilize it, which will adversely affect the working class, the middle class and small business owners, the falsehoods will only ramp up: Somehow, it was all Joe Biden’s fault. We can only hope the Democrats are ready for the onslaught of shameless absurdities.

I certainly don’t think that government can solve every problem, nor should try to. Perversely enough, Trump voters want it to try, although most would deny that or are not cognizant of it. The question we can keep posing to Trump voters is this: How much time does he get to fix your economic problems, and when will you understand that he never will? Expect no good answers; there aren’t any.

'Horrifying' fire at California lithium battery plant sparks calls for new clean energy rules

Clara Harter

LA TIMES
Sun, January 26, 2025

This image from a video shows flames rising after a major fire erupted at the Moss Landing Power Plant, about 77 miles south of San Francisco, on Jan. 16. (KSBW via AP)

When a massive fire erupted at one of the world's largest lithium-ion battery storage facilities in Monterey County, it didn't just send plumes of smoke over nearby communities — it cast a pall over the future of California's clean energy industry.

The fire at the Moss Landing Power Plant, which ignited on Jan. 16, burned for five days and ultimately destroyed around 80% of the batteries inside the building. Now, as the smoke clears, Monterey-area officials warn that the blaze may be a harbinger as the state increases its reliance on renewable energy, electric vehicles and other battery-powered devices.

"I know green is good, but we've got to move slowly," Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church told The Times. "What we're doing with this technology is way ahead of government regulations and ahead of the industry's ability to control it."

The fire earlier this month was the fourth at Moss Landing since 2019, and the third at buildings owned by Texas-based Vistra Energy. The plant is off Highway 1, about 18 miles northeast of the city of Monterey.

Read more: Monterey County officials call Moss Landing lithium battery storage fire a 'wake-up call'

Already, the fire has prompted calls for additional safety regulations around battery storage, and more local control over where storage sites are located. Officials are also demanding that Moss Landing remain offline until an investigation can be completed and major safety improvements implemented.

Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) has introduced Assembly Bill 303 — the Battery Energy Safety & Accountability Act — which would require local engagement in the permitting process for battery or energy storage facilities, and establish a buffer to keep such sites a set distance away from sensitive areas like schools, hospitals and natural habitats.

"I believe that we are living in a climate crisis and that we need to have solutions," Addis said at a news conference Thursday. "But along with those solutions, we have to be able to have safety."

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fierce advocate of clean energy, agrees an investigation is needed to determine the fire's cause and supports taking steps to make Moss Landing and similar facilities safer, his spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in a statement.

Read more: Battery storage is a key piece of California's clean energy transition. But there's a problem with fires

Addis and two other state legislators sent a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission Thursday requesting an investigation.

"The Moss Landing facility has represented a pivotal piece of our state’s energy future, however this disastrous fire has undermined the public’s trust in utility scale lithium-ion battery energy storage systems," states the letter. "If we are to ensure California moves its climate and energy goals forward, we must demonstrate a steadfast commitment to safety."

Vistra has promised an internal investigation into the incident, and to conduct soil testing and fully cooperate with any state or local investigations.

During an emergency briefing after the fire broke out, officials said a plume released from the plant contained hydrogen fluoride, a toxic compound, according to county spokesperson Nick Pasculli.
ADVERTISEMENT


However, initial testing from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled that the levels of toxic gases released by the batteries, including hydrogen fluoride, did not pose a threat to public health during the fire.

Read more: Lithium-ion batteries causing fires, dangers on California freeways, sparking calls for safety improvements

Still, many residents remain on edge about potential long-term impacts on the nearby communities of Watsonville, Castroville, Salinas and the ecologically sensitive Elkhorn Slough estuary.

"Having to experience and witness that kind of assault, not just on the people, but on the trees and the environment in general was horrifying," local resident Silvia Morales told The Times. "The aftereffects might be long term, and I'm seriously concerned about the fact that the plant is adjacent to organic farms that are producing food."

Several factors contributed to the rapid spread of the fire and complicated firefighters' response, according to North County Fire District Chief Joel Mendoza.
ADVERTISEMENT


A fire suppression system that is part of every battery rack at the plant failed and led to a chain reaction of batteries catching on fire, he said at a news conference last week. Then, a broken camera system in the plant and superheated gases made it challenging for firefighters to intervene.

Once the fire began spreading, firefighters were not able to use water, because doing so can trigger a violent chemical reaction in lithium-ion batteries, potentially causing more to ignite or explode.

Read more: Big rig with lithium ion batteries flips in San Pedro, sparking hazardous fire, closing freeway

The scale of the fire startled local residents and officials, who have already experienced several smaller fires at the plant and are worried about what could happen if major changes aren't made.

Exacerbating those concerns is a new battery storage site proposed in an unincorporated part of Santa Cruz County near Watsonville. An online petition to halt the establishment of any more battery storage facilities in Monterey or Santa Cruz counties has collected more than 2,900 signatures.

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to declare a local state of emergency and to send a letter to Vistra and Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which also stores batteries at the plant, to request that their operations remain offline until an investigation is complete.

Local resident Ed Mitchell, who was speaking on behalf of a newly formed community group called the Moss Landing Fire Community Recovery Group, told supervisors that the potential of electric batteries is exciting.

But, he added, it's a “technology that when it goes wrong, it’s not thrilling, it’s terrifying.”

Times staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


Can California’s battery storage industry survive Moss Landing fire? It better | Opinion

The San Luis Obispo Tribune Editorial Board
Sun, January 26, 2025


Vistra’s Moss Landing battery storage facility caught fire on Jan. 16 prompting the evacuation of about 1,200 people.


The massive lithium battery fire at Moss Landing confirmed the worst fears of many Californians — including many Morro Bay residents who have been fighting for years to stop a similar project proposed in their beach community.

Unfortunately, the Jan. 16 fire that destroyed a portion of Vistra Energy’s battery storage facility didn’t tarnish just one company. It was a black mark against the entire industry, and it could make it difficult to site new battery farms in California.

Opinion

That may be unfair, given that the vast majority of energy storage systems in the U.S. have been operating safely. Yet dramatic photos of flames leaping from a building that housed 100,000 battery modules do not inspire confidence. Nor does the evacuation of 1,200 residents who have lingering doubts about the safety of air and water supplies, despite EPA assurances that there was no release of toxic materials. Nor does the fact that this was the fourth fire at the Moss Landing power station.

In the popular beach community of Morro Bay, any remaining goodwill for Vistra’s project has gone up in a cloud of smoke.

Although the proposed new plant would use a different battery configuration and newer technology, it’s hard to trust the company that repeatedly assured the community there would be adequate safety measures in place to prevent accidents. It also shared a report that concluded that even if there were a fire, residents would not be exposed to any health risk.

Who can believe such statements now?

According to a company spokesperson, Vistra has put its application for the Morro Bay project on pause.

“Pause” sounds overly optimistic.

Much as we support battery storage as a key to California’s transition from fossil fuels, Vistra would be well-advised to abandon the Morro Bay project altogether, or at least put it on the shelf for a decade or two and allow battery technology to evolve.
Governor wants investigation

Gov. Gavin Newsom, among others, is calling for the California Utilities Commission to conduct an investigation.

Of course it should. There must be a thorough, independent, transparent investigation to pinpoint the cause of the fire.

Was it a flaw that might exist at other battery farms? Or did conditions at this particular facility made it especially vulnerable?

That could be the case, since the design at Moss Landing is unusual. Battery modules are stacked inside a building rather than outdoors, as they are at most plants.

During a recent board meeting, Monterey County Supervisor Luis Alejo said he toured the facility in 2023. “Many of these battery units were much closer, from my recollection, to each other than what we see outside.”

Experts have speculated that if the indoor modules lacked adequate separation, it would have made it easier for the fire to spread.

Either way, the future of Vistra — one of the nation’s largest energy companies — is on the line, at least in California.

Assemblywoman Dawn Addis, a former Morro Bay city councilmember, is calling on Vistra to abandon the Morro Bay project. She’s also introduced a bill that would restore the ability of local governments to decide whether to permit new battery storage plants. (Under current law, energy companies can bypass local government and go straight to the California Energy Commission for a permit.)

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to explore avenues to prevent Vista and PG&E, which also has a battery storage system at Moss Landing, from ever bringing the systems back online.

One Monterey County supervisor went so far as to compare the incident to the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in 1979.

The one sector that does not seem perturbed is Wall Street; analysts actually upgraded the value of Vistra stock after the fire.

“... The quick containment of the fire and the proactive measures taken by the company to assess and address the damage have provided some reassurance to investors and analysts alike,” a BMO Captial analyst told the website Investing.com.
Changing technology

It’s not just Vistra that’s under the microscope.

There is renewed focus on the lithium-ion batteries used in energy storage. The batteries are prone to catch fire, and when they do, the fires are hard to extinguish and can release hazardous gases. That explains why airlines do not allow lithium batteries in checked luggage.

However, not all lithium-ion batteries are created equal. The ones that caught fire in the Vistra plant were an older generation, dating back to 2020, while the newer battery packs use safer chemistry.

More advances are coming, and other types of systems — including ones that do not use lithium-ion batteries — are in development.

The California Department of Energy has allocated over $270 million to fund grants for development and construction of long-duration energy storage projects that do not use lithium-ion batteries.

The Sacramento Utility District, for example, was awarded $10 million for an iron-flow battery system that stores energy in external tanks of liquid electrolyte.

“The electrolyte solution in iron-flow batteries ... has a pH comparable to wine, and the batteries pose no risk of combustion. Furthermore, the materials used are highly recyclable,” according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.

Sodium-ion batteries are another alternative. Sodium is much easier to source than lithium and less expensive. Sodium batteries also are less likely to overheat and catch fire.
Can confidence be restored?

We cannot abandon energy storage — not if we expect to meet clean energy goals. Wind and solar are part of the solution, but we must have battery storage for those times when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

Otherwise, the climate crisis — the drought, the weather extremes, the firestorms like those that devastated the Los Angeles area — will only get worse and endanger far more Californians.

But as much as we need battery storage, communities should not be put in harm’s way.

The California Public Utilities Commission must step up and determine what went wrong at Moss Landing and use what it learns to prevent future accidents.

It must demand strict adherence to all safety regulations.

And it must push the industry to take advantage of rapidly improving technology by phasing out obsolete battery systems and replacing them with newer, safer models.

Confidence in the battery storage industry must be restored, because there is too much at stake to let it fall victim to a statewide wave of energy NIMBYism.

While it’s understandable that communities like Morro Bay would resist allowing a battery farm in environmentally sensitive and/or highly populated areas, we must remain open to finding appropriate locations.

The Moss Landing fire should be a catalyst that results in more selective siting, better safeguards and improved oversight — not an excuse used to impede an industry so critical to California’s future.

 Man arrested in South Australia for displaying Nazi symbol as Greens call attempts to block Invasion Day rally ‘sickening’

Jordyn Beazley and Adeshola Ore
Sun 26 January 2025 


South Australian police arrest a man at Adelaide’s Survival Day march.

Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images


A man has been charged with displaying a Nazi symbol in Adelaide after a group of people momentarily delayed the start to the city’s Invasion Day march before police moved them on.

In a statement, South Australia Police said the man, 25, was from Western Australia and had been charged with possessing an “article of disguise” and “displaying a Nazi symbol”.

He was one of fifteen men and one youth from across the country – who were not involved in organised events or protests – who were arrested and charged with various street offences.

All arrests involved a neo-Nazi group, police said.

 Guardian Australia

Other charges included failure to cease loitering, possession of a disguise, and hinder and resist arrest, with the group to appear in Adelaide magistrates court on Tuesday.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Adelaide was a peaceful city and called attempts to disrupt that “sickening”.

“[Alleged] attempts to scare and intimidate our local Adelaide community are completely unacceptable and must be dealt with by the full force of the law,” she said.

Earlier, SA’s police commissioner, Grant Stevens, warned that police were preparing to take a “very strong position” on right-wing extremists at protests.

“There are special powers that permit us to take action for anyone who displays, publishes or brandishes a Nazi symbol or displays the Nazi salute and we will take … action should we identify any behaviour of that type,” Grant said.

Victoria Police said about 50 to 70 people attended the pro-Australia Day rally in Melbourne, with no arrests taking place.

In a statement, police said they were “pleased with the overall crowd behaviour” on Sunday.

NSW police confirmed there were no arrests at Sydney’s Invasion / Survival Day related to alleged extremist activity.

What went wrong with ‘Pakistan’s Dubai’? – inside the Chinese initiative that is prompting terror attacks

Shah Meer Baloch in Gwadar and Hannah Ellis-Petersen in Delhi

THE GUARDIAN
Sat 25 January 2025


The day after the 6 October 2024 terrorist attack near the airport in Karachi, Pakistan, which killed two Chinese nationals.

Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock


As the first flight touched down on the fresh tarmac at Gwadar, it was hailed by Pakistan’s government as a step towards “progress and prosperity”. The newly opened airport – now the largest in the country – built in Pakistan’s troubled Balochistan province was “a symbol of the cooperation between Pakistan and China”, according to defence minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif.

Yet the optics of the event told another story. As it unfolded on 20 January, the surrounding city of Gwadar was put under a draconian security lockdown. And while several senior Pakistan government and military figures were present, their Chinese government counterparts were noticeably absent – even though it was China footing the $230m bill for the airport.

Gwadar, with its Chinese-sponsored airport, deepwater port and proposed economic zone, has been touted as a jewel in the crown of the China-Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC), under which China pledged to build around $62bn of infrastructure “megaprojects” spanning airports, highways, railways, ports and power plants for cash-strapped Pakistan. CPEC began in 2015 as a flagship project of China’s belt and road initiative, which aims to give China access and influence over trade routes in Asia and Africa.

But after a turbulent decade, questions are being raised about CPEC’s future. In Pakistan’s impoverished region of Balochistan, where the Chinese have constructed the airport and taken control of the deepwater port, it has provoked a full-blown security crisis, stirring up tensions between the two countries.

Starkly unfulfilled promises that Gwadar would be transformed into “Pakistan’s Dubai” have led to potent anger towards China among locals, who accuse it of turning the city into something akin to a high security prison, with high fencing, segregated areas for Chinese workers, security checkpoints, and heavy police and military presence on the streets.

Interactive

Among the projects in Gwadar that have been met with local distaste is a donkey slaughtering factory – not yet operational – where up to a million donkeys imported from Africa are to be killed to harvest products, including an ingredient used in traditional Chinese medicine.

Access to the sea has also become restricted around Gwadar’s deepwater port, which sends 90% of its profits to its Chinese operator. Local fishers say they can barely survive because they are no longer allowed to freely sail, and have had their boats raided by security forces while out fishing.

“We have lost the entire sea,” said 70-year-old fisher Dad Karim. “When we go fishing, it feels like we are going there as thieves and hiding ourselves. The sea or ocean does not belong to the fishermen any more – it belongs to the Chinese.”

CPEC has made enemies of many terrorist organisations in Pakistan, including the Islamic State and the Pakistan Taliban. The regional separatist militant group Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has accused China of exploiting the area’s resources and embarked on a violent campaign to halt CPEC that continues to escalate. In October, the BLA was behind a terrorist attack near Karachi airport which killed two Chinese nationals and, prior to that, carried out several suicide bombings and shootings that left both Chinese and Pakistanis dead.

The security of Chinese workers has become such a severe stumbling block for CPEC that Chinese officials said Phase II of the project still had not begun, and that some of the 26 projects still in the pipeline may be scaled back from original ambitions. China has pulled out swathes of its workforce from Pakistan, and any arrival of Chinese personnel into Gwadar now prompts a military-grade security shutdown.

In an interview in Islamabad, Wang Shengjie, China’s political secretary to Pakistan, voiced unusually candid criticism of Pakistan over the threats facing CPEC and expressed “serious concerns” over the future of China’s multibillion-dollar investment in the country.

“If the security is not improved, who would come and work in this environment? There is hatred against the Chinese in Gwadar and Balochistan,” he said. “Some evil forces are against the CPEC, and they want to sabotage it.”

Analysts put some of CPEC’s biggest economic and security failures at the door of Pakistan, where policymakers had pushed the Chinese for projects that made little economic sense and did not do the necessary accompanying infrastructure upgrades, meaning citizens have struggled to see the benefits of Chinese investment in power and water.

Shengjie accused the Pakistani government of using “false rhetoric” around CPEC projects, which had given unrealistic expectations to locals. “We don’t work in rhetoric like Pakistan – we just focus on development,” he said. “If this kind of security situation persists, it will hamper development.”

There are also longstanding concerns over whether China’s true motives behind its investments are more militarily strategic than economic. Many have questioned why Gwadar – a city of about 150,000 people who mostly live below the poverty line – would need Pakistan’s largest airport. Locally, people haven taken to referring to it as a commercial “white elephant”. The deepwater port, too, has proved to have little commercial worth since China took control of it, with data showing that a negligible number of commercial ships offloaded in the port in the past five years, most only in transit on the way to Afghanistan. It is currently operating at a loss, according to one Gwadar official.

Several Pakistani officials in Gwadar working on CPEC told the Observer their experience led them to believe the projects were not purely commercial endeavours for the Chinese. Instead it was widely felt that China ultimately intended to use the deepwater port as a strategic military base for its navy and the airport as a resource for its military.

Pakistani officials working with the Chinese at the highest level, who requested anonymity, confirmed it was an “old demand from China” that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces could be brought into Pakistan to guard Chinese workers against attacks, and for Chinese navy ships and submarines to have access to Gwadar port.

“China wants to have the presence of PLA troops to protect their workers on projects related to CPEC. Moreover, they want to have Gwadar port for their navy. Gwadar airport is linked to this demand as well,” said one senior official.

The sources confirmed that Beijing had recently mounted pressure on these strategic demands as the security situation in Pakistan became even more precarious and China had become “frustrated” at CPEC delays.

They alleged that Beijing had tried to push Pakistan into a corner with threats not to roll over loan payments or withhold future CPEC investments if this did not happen. This would be a significant blow to Pakistan, which continues to grapple with a crippling economic crisis and has few other sources of foreign currency and investment.

China’s alleged ambitions to use CPEC projects for strategic military purposes is a longstanding anxiety for both India and the US, which view China as a direct security threat. Washington in particular has expressed concern that Chinese investments in Pakistan “may be used for coercive leverage”.

According to those directly aware of the matter, it was US pressure behind the scenes that ensured certain deals with China, such as a large Chinese state power company buying a majority share in Pakistani power company K-Electric, did not go through.

Pakistan still appears to struggle to balance its deep reliance on China for CPEC and its desire to maintain a relationship with the US. In a move thought sure to infuriate Beijing, during a trip to the US last week to curry favour with the Donald Trump administration, the interior minister, Mohsin Naqvi, met with a US lobby group known for its anti-China stance.

Uzair Younus, principal at the Asia Group, said that Pakistan would “not want to go down the path of Chinese military presence unless they’re left with absolutely no choice”.

“Pakistan is mindful of the potential implications of this, particularly in making their relationship with the US much more adversarial,” he said. “But if China is really pushing for a military base, it’s not a zero possibility that it will happen in the future.”

Both military and government figures denied that any agreement had been made to allow for CPEC to be used for Chinese military strategic purposes. Ahsan Iqbal, minister for planning and development, denied any such notion had been discussed. He said that a recent joint security agreement struck between Pakistan and China was solely about coordination and intelligence sharing and would not mean Chinese military boots on the ground. “I have not heard of any Chinese request to bring their own security or PLA in Pakistan. No such request is on the table. There won’t be any Chinese security forces coming to Pakistan,” said Iqbal.

Related: What is China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Nonetheless, the Pakistan government, led by prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, is currently considered to be in a highly vulnerable position in its negotiations with China. Sharif gained little from his visit to China last year, and Pakistan’s request for an additional $17bn of Chinese energy and infrastructure projects was met with a lukewarm response in Beijing.

But Asfandyar Mir, a senior expert in the South Asia programme at the United States Institute of Peace, said that while China may have scaled back its CPEC ambitions, there was little question of it withdrawing entirely from Pakistan, which remains vital to its geopolitical strategy.

“The Chinese now have this huge stake in Pakistan,” said Mir. “They can’t afford for it not to work out.”