Can a Charter School Not Be a Private Entity?

by Shawgi Tell / May 9th, 2025

Despite endless insistence by privatizers that charter schools are public schools, many people spontaneously think that charter schools are not public schools.

Much of the public does not automatically see charter schools as public schools proper. They are viewed as being different from public schools and put in a separate category than public schools.

When asked what they think a charter school is, the average person often says something like: “I’m not really sure, aren’t they some sort of private school, I really don’t know, but I have heard of them, they seem like private schools to me.”

In this vein, people often share different things they have heard about charter schools. For example, they have heard that charter schools are deregulated schools, take money from public schools, have high teacher turnover rates, cherry-pick students, offer no teacher retirement plan, have no teachers union, pay teachers less than public school teachers, etc. Such facts naturally infiltrate the public sphere and produce a certain social consciousness about charter schools, which have been around for 33 years.

Although the mass media works overtime to promote disinformation about the “publicness”/”privateness” of charter schools, it is significant that people generally see charter schools as being private in some way. There is a pervasive sense that charter schools and public schools are dissimilar entities with different structures, functions, aims, and results.[1] A main problem here though is that while people are aware of certain facts about charter schools they rarely have an integrated, cogent, well-worked-out analysis of what charter schools represent as an education arrangement in the U.S. A detailed big-picture view connecting many important dots is often missing, leaving many vulnerable to disinformation about charter schools.

A main reason for the widespread public perception of charter schools as private education arrangements is that charter schools do in fact differ from public schools in many ways, despite neoliberal efforts to mix up the “publicness” and “privateness” of these two different organizations.

But to add even more confusion to the mix, even some prominent “critics” of charter schools claim that charter schools are neither completely public nor completely private in character. They are supposedly “a little bit of both;” they are “a mix” of public and private.

According to this view, charter schools, all of which are owned-operated by unelected private persons, organizations, or companies, are supposedly “hybrid schools”—they are semi-private and semi-public, so to speak.

In other words, charter schools ride the public/private fence without being fully one or the other. This implies that one aspect (public or private) does not eclipse the other, which suggests that it is erroneous to see charter schools as the essentially privatized arrangements that they really are.

Keeping in mind that the U.S. constitution does not recognize education as a basic human right, it is important to discuss whether charter schools really operate as public schools or privatized education arrangements. This is not a trivial issue. Moreover, can charter schools be considered “hybrid” schools with both private and public features in the proper sense of both words, as some claim?

For starters, public and private mean the opposite of each other; they are antonyms. Importantly, public law deals with relations between the state and individuals, while private law deals with relations between private citizens. Contract law, for example, is part of private law. Charter schools are contract schools. Charter means contract. Thus, the laws that apply to charter schools differ from the laws that apply traditional public schools. This is why, for example, teachers’ rights in charter schools are not the same as teachers’ rights in public schools.

Public refers to everyone, the common good, all people, transparency, affordability, accessibility, universality, non-rivalry, non-discrimination, and inclusiveness. Examples of public goods include public parks, public libraries, public roads, public schools, public colleges and universities, public hospitals, public restrooms, public housing, public banks, public events, forests, street lighting, and more. These goods are available to everyone, not just a few people. They are integral to a civil society that recognizes the role and significance of a public sphere in modern times. Such public provisions can be optimized only in the context of arrangements that are genuinely and thoroughly democratic.

Private, on the other hand, means exclusive, not for everyone, not for the common good, not for all people, not collective, not governmental, not free, not broadly obtainable, only available to or accessible by a few. Something is private when it is “designed or intended for one’s exclusive use.” Examples include private property, private facilities, private schools, private clubs, designer shoes, Ferraris, first class plane tickets, mansions, and more. Such phenomena usually cost money, they are based on ability to pay.

To further elaborate, private also means:

-Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others.

-Of or confined to the individual; personal.

-Undertaken on an individual basis.

-Not available for public use, control, or participation.

-Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government.

-Of, relating to, or derived from nongovernment sources.

-Conducted and supported primarily by individuals or  groups not affiliated with governmental agencies or corporations.

-Not holding an official or public position.

-Not for public knowledge or disclosure; secret; confidential.

In its essence, private property is the right to exclude others from use of said property; it is the power of exclusion;[2] it is not concerned with transparency, inclusion, the common good, collective well-being, or benefitting everyone. This is why when something is privatized, e.g., a public enterprise or social program, it is no longer available to everyone; it becomes something possessed and controlled by the few, for the few. This then ends up harming the public interest and social progress. Privatization typically increases corruption, reduces efficiency, lowers quality, raises costs, and restricts democracy. This applies to so-called “public-private partnerships” as well.

It is also worth noting that something does not become “public” just because it is called “public” many times a day. Simply repeating over and over again that something is public does not magically make it public. Nor does an entity spontaneously become “public” just because it receives public funds. This is not the definition of “publicness.” Thus, for example, as contract schools, charter schools do not automatically become state actors (i.e., public entities) just because they receive public funds. “Publicness” requires something more under State Action Doctrine.[3]

It is not surprising that there has always been a big chasm between charter school rhetoric and reality. Over-promising and under-delivering has been a stubborn but down-played feature of this deregulated private sector for 34 years. This can be seen in the large number of charter schools that have failed and closed in three decades, leaving millions out in the cold (see here and here).

Charter schools may look, sound, and feel public on paper, but they work differently in practice and under the law. Most charter schools operate in a manner that is the opposite of their description on paper. They do not live up to their description on paper.

Unfortunately, many do not question the description of charter schools on paper. They impulsively assume that if something is written on paper and declared “legal,” then it is automatically valid, unassailable, and true in reality. They embrace “paperism.” Critical thinking disappears in this scenario and anti-consciousness takes over. Dogmatic repetition of legal text takes hold and all thinking freezes.

The reason this obstinate large gap between rhetoric and reality remains under-appreciated by many to this day is because neoliberal discourse on charter schools keeps everything at the superficial level, regularly eschewing deep analysis, especially analysis that exposes the private character of charter schools and rampant corruption in the charter school sector. And combined with confounding what is on paper with what exists in reality, many are prevented from discerning the inherently privatized character of charter schools and the significance of this conclusion for education, society, the economy, and the national interest.

To be clear, charter schools are not hybrid public-private schools, nor are they public schools, properly speaking. They are private entities. And in the final analysis, the fundamental principle at stake is that public funds must not flow to private entities or so-called “semi-private” entities because public funds belong only to the public. The private sector has no legitimate claim to public funds that belong solely to the public. Only the public sector can control and use public funds for public goals.

Non-profit and for-profit charter schools are private businesses, regardless of their size, name, education philosophy, type, authorizer, general makeup, or location. Charter schools have always been owned-operated by private organizations. They are not state actors. They are not political subdivisions of the state or government agencies. They are not organic or natural components of state public education systems. They are not set up like that under state laws.  Charter schools are not created by the State even though they may be delegated certain functions by the State. Creation and delegation are not synonymous. Furthermore, delegating a function (a way of doing something) is not the same as delegating authority (enforcing obedience). Charter schools are started/created by unelected private persons.

Charter schools have always been a different type of entity altogether: contract schools owned-operated by unelected private persons or organizations. They are performance-based contracts entered into by two distinct parties: a private organization and the government (or government-sanctioned entity). Naturally, partnering with the government is not the same as being part of the government. This is an important distinction in State Action Doctrine. Charter schools are not an arm of the government like traditional public schools are. They are not acting on behalf of a governmental body. Nor do they act with the same authority as the government. Interestingly, the appearance of the word “charter” before “school” is actually one of the many ways charter schools are distinguished from traditional public schools. It is also significant that the unelected private persons or corporations that own-operate charters, typically business people, derive more than an incidental benefit from owning-operating a charter school. Charter school administrators and trustees, for example, often derive a large amount of wealth and privilege from owning-operating a charter school.

For these and other reasons charter schools are intentionally called “independent,” “autonomous,” and “innovative” schools that do not follow most of the laws, rules, and regulations followed by public schools. These descriptors are key to the non-public character of charter schools. Consistent with “free market” ideology, charter schools are deregulated “schools of choice”—something “consumers” seek, even though most of the time it is the charter school that “chooses” the “shopper.”

Another major feature of the private character of charter schools is that, unlike public schools, they cannot levy taxes either. This is a particularly revealing difference between charter schools and public schools. Only the State and specific political subdivisions of the State (e.g., traditional public schools, cities, counties) can levy taxes. Charter schools are not part of this sovereign power. Also unlike public schools, charter schools are generally not zoned schools and their teachers are treated as “at will” employees, just like in a corporation. Many states even legally permit teachers to work in charter schools without any certification. Numerous other differences can be found here.

Public schools, on the other hand, are state agencies, actual government entities (1) created, (2) authorized, and (3) overseen by the State. They are therefore engaged in state action, while charter schools are not. Put differently, “Action taken by private entities with the mere approval or acquiescence of the State is not state action.”

As “autonomous,” “independent,” “innovative, “rules-free” schools, charter schools are not entangled with the state in the same way that traditional public schools are. The state’s mere labeling of an institution as public or private does not determine whether it is a state actor in State Action Doctrine. Under the law and in practice, the state exercises far more control over traditional public schools than it does over charter schools, which are “schools of choice,” at least on paper. Enrollment in a charter school is voluntary. In this sense, charter schools are more like private schools that have dotted the American landscape for generations. The main point is that the State does not coerce or compel charter schools to act in the same way as public schools proper. The degree of “entanglement” between the State and the entity in question is a very important consideration in State Action Doctrine. Artificial indicators, superficial signs, or various labels are not sufficient forms of “deep entwinement” with the State. The State must be “significantly involved” in a private entity’s actions in order to conclude that State action (and therefore the 14th Amendment) is at play. For decades, the actions of deregulated charter schools have not been attributable to the government, certainly not in the same way as the actions of traditional public schools have.

This is precisely why various provisions of the U.S. Constitution do not apply to privately-operated charter schools. Many private actions are not subject to constitutional scrutiny under State Action Doctrine. Certain constitutional standards generally do not apply to acts of private persons or entities. Constitutional standards apply mainly to the States and their subdivisions (like cities, counties, and school districts). Thus, as deregulated private actors, charter schools are generally not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,[4] while traditional public schools are. Never mind the fact that government has long been dominated by narrow private interests anyway. All levels of government today privilege private interests over the public interest. Americans exercise no control over what takes place in society.

The main reason neoliberals tirelessly repeat the disinformation that charter schools are public schools, or that charter schools have enough meaningful public features about them to render them “public” schools, is in order to justify siphoning billions of dollars a year from traditional public schools that have educated about ninety percent of America’s youth for generations. Charter schools could not seize these public funds if they were not called “public.” If they were openly recognized as the privatized entities that they are, what valid claim would they have to public funds? Public funds belong to the public. Why should public funds be handed over to private interests?

To go further, charter schools are privately-operated schools that increase segregation, intensify corruption, spend millions on advertising, have high teacher turnover rates, and constantly seek ways to maximize profits regardless of whether they are designated as non-profit or for-profit entities. They are fundamentally pay-the-rich schemes that are proliferating in the context of a continually failing economy dominated by major owners of capital. For these and other reasons, the intrinsic character of charter schools cannot be changed easily or quickly, especially given how long they have been around and how charter school laws have been written for 34 years. Can a charter school not be a charter school? Charter school owners-operators are big supporters of no governmental control and have long-referred to charter schools as “free market” schools.

For more than three decades this neoliberal financial parasitism has been cynically carried out in the name of “serving the kids,” “empowering parents,” “promoting innovation,” “getting results,” “providing choices,” “busting teacher unions,” and “increasing competition.”

Individualism, self-interest, consumerism, competition, and a dog-eat-dog ethos—the  so-called “free market”—frame and drive this assault on public education and the public interest. Charter school advocates have long promoted a survival-of-the-fittest view of human relations. They believe parents are consumers who should fend-for-themselves in their quest to secure a “good education.” They think it is normal if a charter school fails, closes, and abandons everyone. This is how “businesses operate,” neoliberals casually declare.

Charter school promoters do not view parents and students as humans with an inalienable right to education that must be guaranteed in practice. You are basically on your own as you spend an extensive amount of time “shopping” for a “good” school. Fingers crossed. There are no guarantees of stability, quality, or security. Such an arrangement is claimed to be “the best of all worlds” in which the “fittest” survive while the “weak” fail. There is supposedly no conceivable alternative to this Social Darwinist ethos and the discredited racist doctrine of DNA that underlies such an obsolete ideology.

The  private character of these outsourced contract schools also comes out in the fact that all charter schools in the U.S. are not only governed by unelected private persons, but many, if not most, are routinely supported, operated, or owned directly by wealthy individuals and organizations that are wreaking havoc in other spheres of society in the name of progress. In fact, many charter schools are openly operated as for-profit schools, which means cashing in on kids is their “education model.” Students are seen as a source of profit for these privately-owned-and-operated contract “schools of choice.”

Widespread patronage and nepotism in the charter school sector only add to the problems plaguing this deregulated sector, and a persistently low level of transparency and accountability in this deregulated sector does not help either. Charter authorizing bodies, the entities that supposedly oversee charter schools for a fee, have had little impact in ensuring high standards and quality in this nonpublic sector. In practice, “free market” accountability has actually lowered quality and standards.

Philosophically, legally, academically, organizationally, programmatically, and socially charter schools have little in common with public schools. They have more in common with private organizations and corporations than with public entities.

It is no accident that in recent years, neoliberal disinformation about the “publicness” and “privateness” of charter schools has become more debased in a desperate attempt to justify the expansion of charter schools across the country. Deliberate mystification about the “publicness” and “privateness” of charter schools has been at the forefront of neoliberal ideology and school privatization, disorienting even some critics of charter schools. But such “justifications” do not work because they lack legitimacy and authority; they are belied by reality.

A main thrust of the decades-long neoliberal antisocial offensive of neoliberals is to blur the distinction between public and private so as to promote narrow private interests in the name of serving the public interest. Such a top-down agenda carried out under the veneer of high ideals is self-serving because it damages education, society, the nation, and the economy. It undermines a modern nation-building project that empowers people and rejects monopolization of the economy by major owners of capital.

Charter schools prove that not every “innovation” that comes into being in the name of “education reform” benefits education, society, the economy, and the national interest.

The oral arguments presented on April 30, 2025 in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on the public funding of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic K-12 Virtual School in Oklahoma show that there is a strong push to treat charter schools as the private entities they are, and that the long-standing critical distinction between public and private is marred by more confusion and disinformation than ever. Keeping in mind that charter schools are “public” only on paper, if SCOTUS deems charter schools to be state actors (i.e., public schools), then the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause applies, which means that charter school cannot be religious. However, early news reports suggest that, for the first time in history, SCOTUS may well approve the funneling of public funds to private religious actors like St. Isidore. While no court decision will change the long-standing private character of charter schools for the last 34 years, a final decision on this divisive landmark case by the SCOTUS is expected in June 2025. More on this in a future article.

The first charter school law in the U.S. was established in Minnesota in 1991. Today, about 3.8 million students attend roughly 8,000 charter schools across the country. Charter schools are legal in 47 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

ENDNOTES:

[1] The vast majority of teacher education students in the United States pursue teaching credentials in order to teach in a traditional public school. Very few, if any, are striving to become charter school teachers.

[2] The right to exclude is “one of the most treasured” rights of property ownership.

[3] It should always be borne in mind that the State today is a State of the rich and not a State that serves the public interest.

[4] The 14th Amendment is central to State Action Doctrine.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Shawgi Tell is author of the book Charter School Report Card. He can be reached at stell5@naz.edu. Read other articles by Shawgi.

The Explosive Israeli Bomb

The nuclear deterrent that is not designed to deter

by Dan Lieberman / May 9th, 2025

When the United States sent the B-29 Super fortress bomber, Enola Gay, to drop “Little Boy” on an unwary Hiroshima and usher in the nuclear age, its administration neglected to plan for a major concern; how to prevent nuclear proliferation. Granted, America could not deter the Soviet Union and China from developing nuclear capabilities and did not want British and French allies from feeling deprived. The word “deterrent” guided who could develop an arsenal of mass destruction. Nuclear weapon balance would deter aggression between nuclear equipped nations.

The nuclear powered nations, with the United States in the lead, had the power to prevent other nations from atomic bomb making and force them into being content with conventional armaments. Why did they neglect to perform the dutiful task? Was it because Israel started nuclear weapons developments in 1963 and none of its antagonists were thinking nuclear? No rationale existed for Israel to have nuclear balance or a “deterrent.” Its nuclear pursuits meant obtaining nuclear unbalance and demonstrating, if it became necessary, doomsday capability. By allowing Israel to have the Samson option and develop atomic weapons, the U.S. and friends stimulated an arms race; Middle East nations sought means to neutralize the Israel bomb. Saddam Hussein expressed this dilemma in a speech at al-Bakr University, 3 June 1978.

When the Arabs start the deployment, Israel is going to say, ‘We will hit you with the atomic bomb.’ So should the Arabs stop or not? If they do not have the atom, they will stop. For that reason they should have the atom. If we were to have the atom, we would make the conventional armies fight without using the atom. If the international conditions were not prepared and they said, “We will hit you with the atom,” we would say, “We will hit you with the atom too. The Arab atom will finish you off, but the Israeli atom will not end the Arabs.”

France started Israel on the road to nuclear capability with the sale of a nuclear reactor and uranium fuel. From Israel’s Nuclear Weapon Capability: An Overview, The Risk Report, Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996).

Franco-Israeli nuclear cooperation is described in detail in the book ‘Les Deux Bombes’ (1982) by French journalist Pierre Pean, who gained access to the official French files on Dimona. The book revealed that the Dimona’s cooling circuits were built two to three times larger than necessary for the 26-megawatt reactor Dimona [supplied by France] was supposed to be – proof that it had always been intended to make bomb quantities of plutonium. The book also revealed that French technicians had built a plutonium extraction plant at the same site. According to Pean, French nuclear assistance enabled Israel to produce enough plutonium for one bomb even before the 1967 Six Day War. France also gave Israel nuclear weapon design information.”

Great Britain paved the road for Israel to reach the bomb. When he was UK prime minister, Harold Wilson supplied Israel with plutonium.

In Harold Macmillan’s time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona – heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make ‘six nuclear weapons a year.’

The United States looked the other way.

After the United States discovered the Dimona reactor in 1960, U.S. nuclear specialists inspected Dimona every year from 1965 through 1969, looking for signs of nuclear weapon production. It is not clear what they found, but in 1968 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported to President Lyndon Johnson its conclusion that Israel had already made an atomic bomb. In 1969, Israel limited inspection visits by U.S. scientists to such an extent that the Americans complained in writing. Without explanation, the Nixon administration ended the visits the following year.

By tacitly agreeing to Israel’s nuclear weapon developments, the western powers allowed India to casually develop its nuclear arsenal. Belatedly and ineffectively, the U.S. terminated economic and military aid to Pakistan in Oct. 1992 and tried to discourage a frightened Pakistan in its attempt to achieve a “balance of terror.” Muslim nations cannot have deterrents. The bluster did not work. Not containing the atomic arsenals of the two arch foes on the India continent is one of the major foreign policy and military policy blunders of the post-war era. Every few years, both nations engage in confrontations, prepared for a war that could unleash nuclear catastrophes.

The consequence of not facing down to India and Pakistan propagated the nuclear arms race. Could there eventually be a nuclear weapon in the military depots of extremists? Pakistan has many atomic bombs, which Pakistan’s present government won’t use, but it is possible that anarchy in Pakistan can enable bombs to slip to radical groups that have no compunction in exploiting the deadly weapon. The laxity is emphasized by the lack of control on previous actions by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s (in)famous nuclear physicist.

In 2004, Dr. Khan indicated he had provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with designs and centrifuge technology to aid in nuclear weapons programs. Where was the CIA when Khan roamed the world? Pondering about Iran, no doubt, and developing policies that have driven Iran to pursue nuclear developments.

Blind to the effects on Iran’s posture, the U.S. staged its military in adjacent nations to Iran, constantly harangued Iran about its human rights record and its despotic government, and accused Iran of dubious terrorist activities. None of these activities were adequately described and the charges did not consider that Iranians are mysteriously getting assassinated, their facilities are being blown up, their computers are attacked by the Stuxnet virus, and CIA spies are being uncovered and arrested by them. Threatened, attacked, blindsided, and expecting destruction by Israel’s vassal, is it strange that being falsely accused of terrorist activists while being terrorized might force the Islamic Republic to pursue the nuclear deterrent. Same with North Korea.

Considering U.S. intensive hostility towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), coupled with its extensive military presence in Japan and South Korea, shouldn’t the Pyongyang leaders be apprehensive? Their apprehension inspired them to welcome previous treaties. In October 1994, President Clinton negotiated the healthy U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework:

• North Korea agreed to freeze its existing plutonium enrichment program and be monitored by the IAEA;
• Both sides agreed to replace by 2003 North Korea’s reactors with light water reactors, financed and supplied by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO);
• The United States agreed to provide heavy fuel oil to the DPRK for energy purposes until atomic energy was available;
• The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations;
• Both sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula; and;
• Both sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

What happened to this anxiety relieving treaty? The charges, countercharges, truths, and distortions are difficult to unravel. Not debatable is that the George W. Bush administration signaled North Korea with unfriendly intentions. Despite being the most significant milestone in the treaty, the first reactor, promised for delivery by 2003, was pushed up until 2008 at the earliest. A leaked version of the Bush administration’s January 2002 classified Nuclear Posture Review mentioned North Korea as a country against which the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons.

After starts and stops, self-destruction of nuclear facilities and reconstruction of the same facilities, the DPRK proceeded to definitely develop nuclear weapons. Their arguments for this posture had validity. The United States did not meet its most important commitment, President George W. Bush designated North Korea as part of an “axis of evil,” the State Department continually equated not having a peace treaty with Pyongyang violations of human rights, and Washington carelessly inferred that, if hostilities developed, North Korea could expect a nuclear attack. What did the Bush administration expect of the ‘hermit state’ leaders? The U.S. State Department evidently imagined, by being conciliatory, Kim Jong Un would take advantage and secretly develop an atomic bomb. However, by not being conciliatory, it assured the DPRK would be provoked into securing a nuclear weapon.

Except for the United States’ offensive attack against Japan, the nuclear club nations that signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty developed the weapons as deterrents. The Soviet Union needed to oppose USA power. Great Britain and France requisitioned a nuclear arsenal to defend against the Soviet Union. China had the greatest fear ─ it was surrounded by a world of enemies.

Of those who have not signed the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons — India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel — all, except Israel had deterrent as an immediate reason. India feared China, Pakistan feared India, and North Korea feared the United States. When Israel started nuclear weapons developments in 1963, none of its antagonists, gushing in oil, mentioned the word ‘nuclear.’

Shouldn’t the U.S. State Department consider in its policies the argument that those most likely to use the bomb are more important than those who pursue the bomb? Great Britain has the bomb, but there is no possibility it will use the weapon. There is little probability that even if about to be defeated, the DPRK will use the bomb ─ against whom, their own brethren? Only Pakistan radical elements and Israel can effectively use the bomb in an offensive manner; the former because they have suicidal elements, and the latter because it does not face nuclear retaliation.

Even if an engaged nation had a nuclear weapon, and presently none of Israel’s foes have a mass destruction device, Israel’s small size and closeness to Arab peoples in adjacent nations give it a protection against a nuclear strike. The possibility of inflicting severe damage to innocent Arab populations in the neighboring countries hinders a retaliatory action to Israel’s aggression. Israel’s principal reason to have the bomb is for the threat, real or imagined, it poses to any nation that counters its policies. The Islamic Republic cannot use nuclear weapons for an offensive purpose. Any attempt to do that and Iran’s enemies will extinguish the Islamic Republic in a flash of the radioactive light. Its bomb can only neutralize other bombs

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel faced possible defeat, a fear existed that unless the United States assisted Israel with more armaments, Israel might use nuclear weapons against its adversaries. A large U.S. airlift of military aid finalized the battle in favor of Israel. A French official explained the situation.

In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, was quoted in the press as saying that France and Israel had worked closely together for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin said that the United States had agreed that the French scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project could apply their knowledge at home provided they kept it secret. But then, Perrin said, ‘We considered we could give the secrets to Israel provided they kept it a secret themselves.’ He added: ‘We thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say ‘if you don’t want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.

After the smoke screen that guides the talks with Iran clears, the brightened atmosphere might reveal that the initial development of the Israeli bomb was to deter the U.S. from interfering with Israel’s expansion plans, as the U.S. did in the 1956 Suez War.

How could the U.S. behave so recklessly, not realizing it was responsible for the atomic arms race and for allowing and even moving others to obtain the bomb? Why does it not consider in its policies the argument that those most likely to use the bomb are more important than those who desire the bomb? Answers to both these questions expose an almost purposeful U.S. policy to drive others to obtain the “doomsday explosive.” A simple proposition can deaden that determination, and not only for Iran; the world’s major powers can give any nation that entertains a “first strike” a rethink ─ do it and get demolished.

Which leads to the a way to halt nuclear proliferation in the Middle East ─ either dismantle all existing bombs or allow them to be neutralized. Better yet ─ signal that a first nuclear strike by any nation will be met by a severe strike on that nation with conventional weapons from the great powers of the United Nations Security Council. Give them an offer they can’t refuse. Not far-fetched!

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com.  He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

 

Missouri Puts Profits Over People’s Lives with New ICL Facility

A Dangerous Legacy

by Lauren Filla and Seraph Kunkel / May 10th, 2025

Early this year, as snow froze into sheets of solid ice, covering the ground for weeks, almost 20% of St. Louis Public School students were unhoused. Meanwhile, in warm town halls, former city Mayor Tishaura Jones praised a proposed new hazardous chemical facility, displaying the city’s economic priorities. St. Louis’s northside has long been subjected to the environmental effects of militarization, from the radiation secretly sprayed on residents of Pruitt Igoe and Northside communities in the 1950s, to the dumped cancer-causing Manhattan Project radioactive waste that poisoned ColdWater Creek. A proposed new Israeli Chemical Limited (ICL) facility in north St. Louis would not only be another colonial imposition, but it also poses disastrous environmental risks for the entire state.

A new ICL facility would further establish St. Louis as a hub of militarization and an exporter of global death and destruction. In St. Charles, Boeing has built more than 500,000 Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits, known as JDAMS. An Amnesty International report tied these to attacks on Palestinian civilian homes, families, and children, making our region complicit in war crimes. In addition to hosting the explosives weapons manufacturer Boeing, Missouri is home to Monsanto (now Bayer), which produced Agent Orange. What’s lesser known is that Monsanto is responsible for white phosphorus production in a supply chain trifecta with ICL and Pine Bluffs Arsenal. White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary weapon that heats up to 1400 degrees F, and international law bans its use against civilians. From 2020 to 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense ordered and paid ICL for over 180,000 lbs of white phosphorus, shipped from their South City Carondelet location to Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas. White phosphorus artillery shells with Pine Bluff Arsenal codes were identified in Lebanon and Gaza after the IDF unlawfully used them over residential homes and refugee camps, according to the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Another ICL facility, combined with the new National Geo Space Intelligence Agency that analyzes drone footage to direct US military attacks, would put North St. Louis squarely on the map for military retaliation from any country seeking to strike back against US global interventionism.

Within a mile of the Carondelet ICL site, the EPA has identified unsafe levels of cancer-risking air toxins, hazardous waste, and wastewater discharge. The new facility would be built within 5 miles of intake towers and open-air sedimentation ponds that provide drinking water to St. Louis. An explosion or leak could destroy the city’s water supply and harm eastern Missouri towns along the Mississippi.  ICL has committed multiple Environmental and Workplace Safety violations, including violating the Clean Air Act at its South City facility. In 2023, they were declared the worst environmental offenders by Israel’s own Environmental Protection Ministry after the 2017 Ashalim Creek disaster, and were fined $33 million.

ICL claims the new North City site is a safe and green facility for manufacturing lithium iron phosphate for electric vehicles; however, lithium manufacturing is hardly a green or safe process. Lithium and phosphorus mining require enormous amounts of freshwater – a protected resource – resulting in poisoned ecosystems and a limited water supply for residents and wildlife in the local communities where they are sourced.

In October 2024, a lithium battery plant in Fredericktown, Missouri, burst into flames, forcing residents to evacuate and killing thousands of fish in nearby rivers. The company had claimed to have one of the most sophisticated automated fire suppression systems in the world, yet it still caused a fire whose aftermath continues to affect residents today, with comparisons being drawn to East Palestine, Ohio. Meanwhile, in January, over 1,000 people in California had to evacuate due to a massive fire at a lithium facility, the fourth fire there since 2019. Despite ICL claiming that the new site will use a ‘safer’ form of lithium processing, it’s clear that lithium facilities are not as safe as profit-driven corporations claim them to be.

Missouri leaders repeatedly prioritize corporate profits over people via tax abatements. ICL is receiving 197 million dollars from the federal government. The city is forgiving a $500,000 loan to troubled investors Green Street to sell the land to ICL and is proposing a 90% tax abatement in personal property taxes for ICL, plus 15 years of real estate tax abatements. This is a troubling regional trend, considering that in 2023, St. Louis County approved $155 million in tax breaks to expand Boeing, also giving them a 50% cut in real estate and personal property taxes over 10 years. Corporate tax breaks in the city have cost minority students in St. Louis Public Schools 260 million dollars in a region where 30% of children are food insecure. Over 2000 people in St. Louis city are homeless.  Enough babies die each year in St Louis to fill 15 kindergarten classrooms. Black babies are 3 times more likely to die than white babies before their first birthday, and Black women are 2.4 times more likely to die during pregnancy. Spending public funds on corporate tax breaks instead of directing them toward food, housing, and life-saving medical care for black women and babies is inexcusable. Why does a foreign chemical company with almost 7 billion in earnings need so much funding from our local and federal government at the expense of our residents?

Officials cite ‘job creation’ as a major reason to expand ICL. Still, the new facility is only expected to create 150 jobs, and there is no evidence that these jobs will be given to people in the community where it is being built. Investing in black and minority businesses would lead to actual self-sustaining economic development.

Despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, local tax breaks, the backing of former Governor Mike Parsons, and approval from city committees, the facility’s opening is not a done deal. The St. Louis City Board of Alders could still intervene. Stopping a facility with this much federal and international backing would require massive pushback from Missourians. Residents deserve more information and input in this process, especially considering the city’s resistance to hearing public comments. Notably, when locals submitted a Sunshine request for the ICL permit in March, it was so heavily redacted that it was unreadable.

This facility would turn local black neighborhoods into environmental and military sacrifice zones, and our response to city, state, and federal leaders should be a definitive and resounding No!

CODEPINK Missouri has a petition to stop the building of the ICL facility in St. Louis.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Lauren Filla is a St. Louis resident. She is a healthcare provider and organizer in Missouri with an interest in human rights and the environment. Seraph Kunkel is a St. Louis resident and antiwar organizer. Read other articles by Lauren Filla and Seraph Kunkel.

America’s Great Brain Drain

by Robert Hunziker / May 10th, 2025

A few years ago, no one would have imagined that one of the biggest democracies in the world would cancel research programs under the pretext that the word ‘diversity’ was in this program.

— French President Emmanuel Macron, Choose Europe for Science Event/Paris, May 5, 2025

America’s shores are experiencing a huge sucking sound as one of the biggest brain drains of modern history hits the country’s best, smartest, heading for Europe on grants, as smiles abound across the pond. European leaders are pinching themselves, unable to believe such good fortune falling into their laps, thanks to the Trump administration “freezing” government funding linked to “diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.”

The EU has officially launched a drive to attract scientists and researchers that America is discarding by the bucketful, see:  “Europe Launches a Drive to Attract Scientists and Researchers After Trump Freezes US Funding,” AP News, May 5, 2025.

This is an extraordinary shrinking of America’s IQ in so many ways that a full understanding is nearly impossible, but it is only too obvious that deliberate destruction of science is the product of a bruised/intimidated mentality that’s seeking payback. There is no other logical explanation.

The EU is licking its chops over this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. According to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, while on stage at Sorbonne University, the EU Executive Branch has already decided to set up a “super grant” program, aimed at “longer-term perspective to the very best in the field.”

Essentially, the EU is cherry-picking some of America’s best brain power. To accomplish this phenomenal opportunity, the Commission is authorizing additional funding of $566 million in 2025-2027, making Europe “a magnet for researchers.” This funding is in addition to the European Research Council’s budget of $18 billion for 2021-2027. Moreover, the EU will “enshrine freedom of scientific research into law” via a new enactment. Europe will not compromise on its long-standing principles of academic freedom.

Above and beyond the EU, according to President Macron, France has also beefed-up commitments to science and research to capitalize on America’s ‘fired’ scientists. France has launched a platform for reception of international researchers: Choose France for Science. President Macron officially christened the platform: “Here in France, research is a priority, innovation a culture, science a limitless horizon. Men and women researchers from all over the world, choose France, choose Europe.”

So far, the US has cut 380 grant projects and thousands of university researchers have been notified that their National Science Foundation funding is canceled, but they know where to turn. Backlash has resulted as doctors, scientists, and researchers hit the streets in “Stand Up for Science” rallies across the country. Astronomy Professor Phil Platt, addressing a crowd, said: “We’re looking at the most aggressively anti-science government the United States has ever had.” UPenn climate scientists Michael Mann: “Science is under siege.” Bill Nye the Science Guy hit the bull’s eye, rhetorically challenging the forces of government: “What are you afraid of?” which may become the rallying cry of opposition throughout the land.

Professionals agree that science has been in the midst of enormous achievements to make lives better than ever, but according to senior staff members of the National Institutes of Health, funding cuts will seriously damage or eliminate major progress on key, very significant, programs for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer, as examples. Unfortunately, this will negatively impact tens of millions of Americans for years to come.

Since World War II, the US has been recognized as a world leader in science and technology. Now, that enviable position is swirling around the drain. According to several key federal workers who spoke at a recent MIT Technology Review, America’s world leadership is literally being dismantled before our eyes. These are research programs that backstop American life. “The US took nearly a century to craft its rich scientific ecosystem; if the unraveling that has taken place over the past month continues, Americans will feel the effects for decades to come.” (“The Foundations of America’s Prosperity Are Being Dismantled,” MIT Technology Review, Feb. 21, 2025)

According to a recent article in The Hill, March 2, 2025: “The administration has issued a multi-pronged, anti-science attack on the health sciences. Possibly the most destructive is the recent slashing of research funding for both NIH and the National Science Foundation.” Here’s what’s at stake: “In 2024, NIH provided more than $37 billion in funding across every state, creating more than 400,000 jobs and generating $92 billion in economic activity. This funding is used for laboratory research, research centers and, most importantly, the education of trainees, the next generation of scientists. Trainees greatly contribute to the research and discoveries even while they are in training.”

If $37 billion in funding produces $92 billion “in economic activity” and “supports 400.000 jobs,” what’s up with destroying a greater than 2-for-1 return on investment? What’s missing from this equation, or is it simply a matter of looney-tunes, not knowing which way is up? Study after study after study, and more studies, prove that governmental funding of science generates returns in-excess of what private enterprise achieves. For example, governmental science funding played the crucial leading role in creation of the internet. What’s that worth?

It should be widely recognized and brought to the public’s attention that so much is wrong, so much at stake with anti-science rhetoric, recklessly cutting science budgets, elimination of entire programs, and loud-mouthed threats, demoralizing the public about science. It’s difficult to know how to respond, and of course, this is the intention behind the rapidity of a well-orchestrated blind-siding all parties, unable to collect ones’ thoughts type of assault on major, hugely productive governmental programs that protect life. This type of assault is comparable to a Panzer Division Blitzkrieg. Nobody has enough time to react.

What’s the impact of Blitzkriegs demolishing science? According to an article in Science, May 2, 2025: “Trump’s Proposed Budget Would Mean ‘Disastrous’ Cuts to Science.” For those interested, this article delineates agencies subject to cuts. Meanwhile, the brain drain is in full throttle motion. Of interest, an article in the prestigious science journal Nature, March 25, 2025: A poll found that 75% of 1,600 respondents, including 1,200 US scientists said: “Yes, they are looking for jobs in Europe and Canada.” And there’s considerable anecdotal evidence that current post-graduates are looking overseas.

And there’s this: “Trump Proposed Unprecedented Budget Cuts to US Science,” Nature, May 2, 2025: “Huge reductions, if enacted, could have ‘catastrophic’ effects on US competitiveness and scientific pipeline… The message that this sends to young scientists is that this country is not a place for you,’ says Michael Lubell, a physicist who tracks science policy at the City University of New York in New York City. ‘If I were starting my career, I would be out of here in a heartbeat.”

The word is out. Scientists will find opportunities galore. Science has never been more sought after in Europe and Canada and Australia, which ranks 5th in the world for trust in science. After all, the world is experiencing the most exciting era of scientific achievement of all time, and the EU intends to take over leadership, stripping the US of its 75-year crown. It’s been laid in their lap.

Moreover, according to the National Science Foundation, China has already overtaken America in several key scientific metrics. Going forward, the EU has America to thank for reinvigorating its science and technology effort more so than ever before, as they challenge China with much more enthusiasm for top billing. The U.S. lit their fuse, making EU science and technology great again!

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: rlhunziker@gmail.com. Read other articles by Robert.