Ocasio-Cortez Says ‘We Should Not Be Entertaining a Bailout’ of AI Industry as Bubble Fears Grow

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said no government rescue of artificial intelligence firms “as healthcare is being denied to everyday Americans.”


US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on March 5, 2025.
(Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Nov 19, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday that the federal government should not consider a taxpayer bailout of the artificial intelligence industry as fears grow that the rapidly expanding sector poses systemic risks to the global economy.

“Should this bubble pop, we should not be entertaining a bailout,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said during a House subcommittee hearing. “We should not entertain a bailout of these corporations as healthcare is being denied to everyday Americans, as SNAP and food assistance is being denied to everyday Americans, precipitating some of the very mental crises that people are turning to AI chat bots to try to resolve.”

Warning Against Taxpayer Bailout for Big Tech, Critics Fume Over OpenAI Execs’ Talk of Government Loans

Ocasio-Cortez echoed the concerns of industry insiders and analysts who have warned in recent weeks that the AI investment boom created a bubble whose rupture would cause far-reaching economic carnage.

“We’re talking about a massive economic bubble,” the New York Democrat said Tuesday. “Depending on the exposure of that bubble, we could see 2008-style threats to economic stability.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks came on the same day that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sounded the alarm about potential Trump administration plans to “use taxpayer dollars to prop up OpenAI and other AI companies at the expense of working class Americans.”

“The Trump administration’s close ties with AI executives and donors—including millions of dollars of contributions to President Trump’s new ballroom project—raise concerns that the administration will bail out AI executives and shareholders while leaving taxpayers to foot the bill,” Warren wrote in a letter to the White House’s AI czar, David Sacks.

OpenAI, a firm at the center of the nascent industry, has reportedly been in discussion with the Trump administration about the possibility of receiving federal loan guarantees for the construction of chip factories in the United States. Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, warned earlier this month that “it is entirely possible that OpenAI and the White House are concocting a scheme to siphon taxpayer money into OpenAI’s coffers, perhaps with some tribute paid to Trump and his family.”

“Perhaps not so coincidentally, OpenAI president Greg Brockman was among the attendees at a dinner for donors to Trump’s White House ballroom, though neither he nor OpenAI have been reported to be actual donors,” Weissman added.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal last week, Sarah Myers West and Amba Kak of the AI Now Institute observed that “the federal government is already bailing out the AI industry with regulatory changes and public funds that will protect companies in the event of a private sector pullback.”

“The Trump administration is rolling out the red carpet for these firms,” they wrote. “The administration’s AI Action Plan aims to accelerate AI adoption within the government and military by pushing changes to regulatory and procurement processes. Government contracting offers stable, often lucrative long-term contracts—exactly what these firms will need if the private market for AI dips.”

“Federal policy has jumped the gun: We don’t yet know if AI will transform the economy or even be profitable,” West and Kak added. “Yet Washington is insulating the industry from all sorts of risk. If a bubble does pop, we’ll all be left holding the bag.”

Warnings of AI Bubble Grow Louder as Big Investors Dump Nvidia Stock

“I’m very nervous about the size of these investments in these data centers,” one tech CEO said.


The NVIDIA logo is displayed on a mobile phone with a financial stock graph visible in the background, in this photo illustration in Brussels, Belgium, on November 18, 2025.
(Photo by Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Brad Reed
Nov 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Tech industry insiders are growing more wary of a financial bubble in the artificial intelligence industry that many analysts have been warning could tip the global economy into a severe recession.

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet, said in an interview with BBC published Tuesday that he believes the speculation currently pumping up investment in AI is akin to the kind of speculation that occurred in the late 1990s ahead of the dot-com stock crash.

“We can look back at the internet right now,” he told BBC. “There was clearly a lot of excess investment, but none of us would question whether the internet was profound. I expect AI to be the same. So I think it’s both rational and there are elements of irrationality through a moment like this.”

PIchai said that he believed his firm would be well positioned to weather the bursting of an AI bubble, although he also cautioned that “I think no company is going to be immune, including us,” were such a scenario to occur.

Sebastian Siemiatkowski, CEO of global payments network Klarna, told the Financial Times on Monday that while he still believed in the potential of AI, he also thought many of the biggest players in tech were vastly overspending to build out infrastructure that would not be needed to power the technology.

Siemiatkowski pointed to advances made this year by Chinese AI firm DeepSeek in vastly reducing the power needed to run AI as evidence that the energy-devouring data centers being constructed across the US would be a massive overbuild.

“I think OpenAI can be very successful as a company but at the same time I’m very nervous about the size of these investments in these data centers,” he said. “That’s the particular thing that I am concerned about.”

Some major investors are also signaling that the boom may be over for AI.

MarketWatch reported on Monday that Palantir chairman Peter Thiel’s hedge fund, Thiel Macro LLC, dropped all its shares in Nvidia, the US-based semiconductor giant that manufactures most of the chips used to power AI. The move by Thiel was revealed just one week after Japanese investment holding company SoftBank disclosed that it had divested its entire $5.8 billion stake in Nvidia.

Nvidia has also become a target for investor Michael Burry, who famously made a fortune by short-selling the US housing market ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, and who recently revealed that his firm was making bets against Nvidia and Palantir.

Concerns about a potential AI bubble have roiled global markets this week, and all major US stock indexes once again traded lower on Tuesday, marking the fourth consecutive losing session.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the current selloff is being driven by investors spooked about “lofty valuations and a pile-up of debt to build data centers,” and the paper pointed to a new survey showing that “45% of fund managers see an AI bubble as the top ‘tail risk’ for markets” right now.

Trump EPA’s Rollback of Wetlands Protections Is Latest ‘Gift’ to Polluters, Groups Say

“Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers,” said one advocate.


Alkali wetlandsare seen on April 22, 2023, in Carrizo Plain National Monument, California.
(Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Nov 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Environmental justice campaigners on Monday said the Trump administration’s latest rollback of wetland protections was “a gift to developers and polluters at the expense of communities” and demanded permanent protections for waterways.

“Clean water protections shouldn’t change with each administration,” said Betsy Southerland, former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water. “Every family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or who’s in office.”
RECOMMENDED...



Another Giveaway to Big Oil as Trump Wrenches Open 13 Million Acres of Arctic for Drilling



‘Americans Should Be Enraged’: Reports Expose Unprecedented Corruption at Trump DOJ

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed changes to the rule known as “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which has been the subject of debate and legal challenges in recent decades. Under the Trump administration, as in President Donald Trump’s first term, the EPA will focus on regulating permanent bodies of water like oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams.

The administration would more closely follow a 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, which the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found this year would remove federal protections from 60-95% of wetlands across the nation.

The Zeldin rule would eliminate protections for most wetlands without visible surface water, going even further than Sackett v. EPA in codifying a narrower definition of wetlands that should be protected, said the Environmental Protection Network (EPN). The rule comes after pressure from industry groups that have bristled over past requirements to protect all waterways.

Wetlands provide critical wildlife habitats, replenish groundwater, control flooding, and protect clean water by filtering pollution.

The Biden administration required the Clean Water Act to protect “traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters,” but was constrained by the Sackett ruling in 2023.

“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply.”

Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food and Water Watch, said the new rule “weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast.”

“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters—Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction,” said Heinzen. “This rule flies in the face of science and commonsense. Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers.”

The “critical functions” of wetlands, she added, “will only become more important as worsening climate change makes extreme weather more frequent. EPA must reverse course.”

Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for American Rivers, added that the change to WOTUS will “likely make things worse for flood-prone communities and industries dependent on clean, reliable water.”

“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply,” said Huta. “The EPA is taking a big swipe at the Clean Water Act, our greatest tool for ensuring clean water nationwide.”

The proposal was applauded by the National Association of Manufacturers, whose president, Jay Timmins, said companies’ “ability to invest and build across the country” has been “undermined” by the Obama and Biden administration’s broader interpretation of WOTUS.

But Southerland said Zeldin’s proposal “ignores decades of science showing that wetlands and intermittent streams are essential to maintaining the health of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies.”

“This is one of the most significant setbacks to clean water protections in half a century,” she said. “It’s a direct assault on the clean water Americans rely on.”


Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said the group was evaluating the legality of the proposal and would “not hesitate to go to court to protect the cherished rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands that all Americans need and depend on.”

“The proposal avoids specifying the exact scale of the deregulation it proposes, but it clearly would result in a serious reduction in legal protections for waters across the United States,” said Caputo. “Many waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act for over 50 years would lose those protections under this proposal.”

Property Insurance Is the Canary in the Climate Coal Mine

We too have a little bird trying to call our attention to a major problem. That bird is the insurance industry with its army of actuaries.


A view is shown of the damage after heavy rain and devastating floods in Waverly, Tennessee, United States on August 22, 2021.
(Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Paul F. Delespinasse
Nov 18, 2025

Common Dreams


As the cost of insuring our houses escalates around the United States and the world, it appears that property insurance is acting like a canary in a coal mine.

Canaries used to be taken into coal mines because they served as an early warning system if dangerous gases were building up. Since the canaries were more sensitive to these gases than people, they protected the miners from life-threatening conditions. When the canary dropped dead, the miners could still get out..



Survivors of Philippines ‘Super Typhoon’ Sue Oil Giant for Causing Climate Emergency


Like the canaries, the actuaries who interpret data for insurance companies are more sensitive than most individual people to changes going on in the world. Actuaries earn big salaries because the financial health of their employers depends on them.

Things have already gotten so bad that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recently sponsored a webinar panel discussion: “Extreme Weather Events and Insurance: Households, Homeowners, and Risk.” (This link will take you to a video of the event.)

Any coal miner who refused to evacuate a mine when the mine’s canary keeled over—perhaps saying, “I don’t believe there is any real danger here”—would not have been long for this world.

The panelists were located in the United States (Washington, DC and Madison, Wisconsin) and England (London and Cambridge). Climate changes are not limited to the United States, nor is awareness that we need to do something about them if we can.

The panelists were not grinding particular political axes. They were discussing the measured fact that an increasing number of extreme weather events are destroying valuable property—housing, commercial buildings, streets, bridges, etc.—requiring insurance company payouts to policyholders.

These insurance payouts must be financed by the premiums charged to people who are insuring their property. As damages increase, the premiums also have to increase. Although premiums may be regulated by state regulators, if they do not allow the needed increases insurance companies will pull out of doing business in that state.

As insurance companies pull out, it may become more and more difficult—perhaps even impossible—for people to insure their houses. But if a house cannot be insured, banks won’t finance a mortgage on it, and if it cannot be financed the owner may be unable to sell it.

For many people, their home is their primary investment, and they cannot afford to live in it if they cannot insure it. If it burned down or was otherwise destroyed, they would be wiped out financially. But if they cannot sell it, then the homeowner is a real pickle.

Disrupted housing markets can produce disastrous results for a country’s economy in general, as we Americans discovered during the recession beginning around 2008.

The impact of a world that is heating up is not being felt as much in the United States as in many other countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia which are suffering from unusually long bouts of very hot weather, flooding downpours alternating with extreme droughts, forest fires, etc. Some island nations may be literally wiped out as melting icebergs and glaciers increase sea level, putting them underwater.

But enough extreme weather events are already occurring in the United States that the insurance companies must make major increases in their prices.

Any coal miner who refused to evacuate a mine when the mine’s canary keeled over—perhaps saying, “I don’t believe there is any real danger here”—would not have been long for this world.

Americans who continue to politicize discussion of global warming—either denying its existence, its extent, its speed, or its seriousness—will be like that coal miner. We too have a little bird trying to call our attention to a major problem. That bird is the insurance industry with its army of actuaries. We ignore that warning at our own risk, and at the risk of our children and grandchildren.


Paul F. Delespinasse
Paul F. deLespinasse, who now lives in Oregon, is professor emeritus of political science at Adrian College in Michigan. He can be reached via his website, www.deLespinasse.org.
Full Bio >

Congress, Don’t Shield Big Oil From Accountability

As city leaders from across the US gather this week to discuss our collective priorities, let’s reaffirm our commitment to protect access to the courts for all our communities.


An American flag is shown afixed to a burned truck in a neighborhood decimated by the Marshall Fire on January 2, 2022 in Louisville, Colorado.
(Photo by Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)

Guyleen Castriotta

Bryan Kennedy
Nov 18, 2025

Common Dreams


As local leaders from across the country gather in Salt Lake City this week for the annual National League of Cities conference to advocate for the interests of local governments, the challenges of protecting and preparing our communities for the future are clearer than ever. Local governments and their taxpayers are being stretched thin. Between the rising cost of living, increasingly severe weather disasters, escalating maintenance costs, and other expenses, local leaders like us in Colorado, Wisconsin, and beyond are having to make tough decisions about our priorities—and the last thing we need is to have the tools at our disposal taken away from us.

And yet, there is a campaign in Congress right now that aims to do just that.


Defending Democracy Starts With Your Phone Plan: Why I Cut Ties With T-Mobile

Goliaths of industry, including pesticide and oil companies, have been lobbying Congress for legal liability shields that would block communities from holding them accountable in court for any of their bad actions. No matter your politics, we should all agree that it’s dangerous and wrong to hand any industry a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card.

Bayer, the maker of Roundup, is asking Congress to put an end to the lawsuits the megacorporation is facing for the health harms its product has caused for years—and some lawmakers are actually pushing legislation that would do so.

Broad legal shields for entire industries would not only threaten local governments’ ability to pursue accountability, but also violate a core value of our justice system.

Similarly, lobbyists for oil and gas companies are lobbying federal lawmakers for a legal shield that could effectively put the fossil fuel industry above the law and block dozens of state and local lawsuits the companies are currently facing for deceiving the public about how their products’ fuel climate change. Municipalities in Colorado, one of our home states, are among the communities demanding that Big Oil companies pay their fair share of the climate costs taxpayers are now facing to adapt to an increasingly severe climate. Like tobacco and opioid companies, fossil fuel companies have long known their products were dangerous, but pushed disinformation to cover up the evidence and protect their profits, while our communities pay the price.

Plainly, our right to access the courts is under attack. Local leaders understand the power that comes from being able to access the courts, which is why the National League of Cities—which represents more than 2,700 cities across the country—has a standing commitment to oppose any federal legal shield that would undermine municipalities’ authority to bring affirmative litigation.

These attacks on our right to access the courts cannot stand. Broad legal shields for entire industries would not only threaten local governments’ ability to pursue accountability, but also violate a core value of our justice system. When bad actors lie to the public and cause harm in our communities, the legal system is supposed to serve as a fair venue—where arguments and evidence are considered—but that system is not possible when you take away our ability to present arguments and evidence at all.

Imagine if Big Tobacco or opioid manufacturers had secured legal immunity from Congress—communities decimated by cancer and addiction would never have been able to fund treatment centers and public health campaigns without first filing accountability lawsuits only made possible through access to the justice system.

As city leaders from across the US gather this week to discuss our collective priorities, let’s reaffirm our commitment to protect access to the courts for all our communities and speak with one voice across party lines to ensure that our congressional representatives do the same.

Think Tank Launches ‘One-Stop Shop’ for Economic Info to Fight Trump’s War on Data

“We’re collecting all data we can to assess the economy’s health in this time when the gold standard data are under attack,” said the Economic Policy Institute’s senior economist.


US President Donald Trump holds up an economic data chart in the Oval Office of the White House on August 7, 2025.
(Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Nov 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Amid President Donald Trump’s efforts to conceal the harmful consequences of his economic policies by hiding key data and replacing economists who tell harsh truths with partisan yes-people, a leading US think tank on Monday announced a new digital dashboard “to provide an accountability check” against attempts to manipulate and mislead the public.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) says its new data accountability dashboard “serves as a one-stop shop” for economic data as federal statistic agencies (FSAs), once the “gold standard” for information, “face historically unprecedented threats from the Trump administration to their capacity and even their independence.”

“This raises the specter of a future where FSA data cannot be relied upon to honestly report whether the US economy is experiencing dysfunction,” EPI said.

In a bid to circumvent this, the EPI dashboard “displays a range of data not collected or disseminated by FSAs to shed some light on the economy during the pause in government data collection during the shutdown and—even more importantly—to provide an accountability check against efforts to manipulate FSA data in the future.”



As EPI senior economist Elise Gould explained in a statement: “The data collected by the federal statistical agencies are an incredibly valuable public good. While there would never be a good time to squander it, the absolute worst time to degrade data quality is when the economy is facing policy shocks that threaten to cause either a recession or an uptick of inflation.”

“Given this urgency, we’re collecting all data we can to assess the economy’s health in this time when the gold standard data are under attack,” she added.

Trump’s attempts to hide unfavorable economic data date back to his first administration, when he blocked or delayed economic analyses on the projected impacts of his tariffs. For example, half a dozen economists at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) quit en masse in April 2019, claiming they suffered retaliation for publishing reports that shed negative light on the president’s trade and taxation policies.

In a related move that year, the USDA abruptly relocated its Economic Research Service main office from Washington, DC to Kansas City, Missouri, prompting another wave of resignations. ERS publications—including reports on farm income, rural economies, and trade impacts—dropped sharply, with key analyses delayed or blocked. Critics, including former agency officials, argued that the move to Kansas City was intended to conceal negative impacts of Trump’s trade policies from the public.

During Trump’s second administration, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick disbanded the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC), a key body that worked under the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis to ensure that the federal government produces accurate data on economic indicators.

Trump also gutted the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Technical Advisory Committee, which had advised the Department of Labor about how economic changes can impact data collection. In August, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, baselessly accusing her of manipulating economic data to harm him politically by publishing a jobs report showing weak employment growth.

Two weeks later, the president nominated EJ Antoni, a senior economist at the Heritage Foundation described as a “partisan bomb thrower” who helped write Project 2025, a blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government, to replace McEntarfer. Antoni stunned critics with suggestions including eliminating federal monthly jobs reports, and with his overall lack of data management experience. His nomination was later withdrawn amid mounting controversy.

Additionally, the Trump administration has summarily fired dozens of independent agency leaders, required every federal agency to have a White House liaison, and required ostensibly independent agencies to submit draft regulations to the Office of Management and Budget—headed by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought—for review before publication.

As Common Dreams reported, an analysis published in September by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities detailed how the Trump administration’s politicization of data, combined with funding cuts, is making it more difficult for experts to determine how the president’s policies are impacting US households.

From ending tracking of the impacts of climate-driven extreme weather, to removing a study from the Department of Justice website that showed violent attacks by far-right extremists outpaced those committed by the left, to removing questions about gender identity from key crime surveys, the Trump administration’s attacks on information transcend economic data.

“The assault on data, research, and facts is fundamental to Trump and his authoritarian regime,” Liza Featherstone, a contributing editor at The New Republic, recently wrote. “He seems to understand that data provides the basis for arguments, and he does not want any arguments. He also understands that facts and knowledge can only be nourished and sustained by institutions and experts, so he is destroying those institutions and pink-slipping those experts.”

“We must appreciate their importance and their stakes as well as he does, and remain as committed to the institutions, the data, the facts, and the experts as Trump is to their eradication,” Featherstone added. “He has brought sincere zeal to their destruction, and we must bring an even greater passion to their restoration and renaissance. We will need it, as ours is the harder job.

 

World COPD Day: November 19, 2025

In support of World COPD Day on November 19, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), is drawing attention to the importance of correctly diagnosing COPD earlier - with the theme ‘Short of Breath, Think COPD’  

Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

World COPD Day: November 19, 2025

view more 

Credit: Original content developed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)

World COPD Day: Short of Breath, Think COPD

Appropriate diagnosis of COPD can have a very significant public health impact. 

For Immediate Release

In support of World COPD Day on November 19, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), is drawing attention to the importance of correctly diagnosing COPD earlier - with the theme ‘Short of Breath, Think COPD’.  

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable condition marked by breathlessness, chronic sputum production and cough, claiming three million lives globally each year —particularly in low-resource countries — and is expected to increase due to aging populations and ongoing exposure to risks like tobacco smoke and air pollution.

Although COPD is a common, preventable, and treatable disease, extensive under-diagnosis, misdiagnosis, and late-diagnosis lead to patients receiving no treatment, incorrect treatment, or less effective treatment. Studies from across the world suggest that up to 70% of adults with COPD remain undiagnosed, with rates even higher in low and middle-income countries.(1,2,3) Undiagnosed COPD can lead to greater symptom burden, poor quality of life, impaired work productivity, and poorer overall general health status.(4)

There are many factors that can lead to inappropriate or missed diagnosis, including patient-, healthcare system-, and provider-related factors. Patients may not recognize or report symptoms accurately, healthcare systems may not have resources to adequately train staff in respiratory health, or providers may have a poor understanding of COPD diagnostic criteria.

It’s important for health providers to look for the following risk factors:

• Age ≥ 35 years
• Exposure to risk factors (tobacco smoke, household and outdoor air pollutions, occupational exposures
• Genetic factors
• Prematurity and early life disadvantage factors
• Respiratory symptoms

Accurate and timely diagnosis of COPD can improve quality of life and health outcomes. Based on currently available evidence, GOLD advocates for active case finding, including performing spirometry in individuals with symptoms and/or risk factors.(5)

Although there is currently no cure for COPD, steps to help improve diagnosis can have a positive impact on future health. Patients and families can help advocate for more research and better access to care, including routine spirometry screenings and telehealth access for patients in remote settings.  In addition, providers and policy makers can work together to improve access to spirometry and advocate for its use as a general health marker in all stages of life. Health systems can work to increase academic training programs specializing in respiratory health, as well as improve training in COPD diagnostic criteria, including the use and interpretation of spirometry.

Learn more in the 2026 GOLD Report: GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS, MANAGEMENT, AND PREENTION OF CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (2026 REPORT).

World COPD Day World COPD Day is an annual global initiative run by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), a member of the Forum of International Respiratory Societies (FIRS). The goal of World COPD Day is to raise awareness and present new knowledge and therapeutic strategies for COPD worldwide.  The 23rd annual World COPD Day will take place on November 20, 2024. 

Be part of the global effort to improve the lives of people with COPD. Join World COPD Day events organized by GOLD and FIRS. Find out more here.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable disease causing breathlessness, chronic sputum production, and cough. It's a leading global killer, especially prevalent in low-resource countries. Annually, COPD claims three million lives worldwide, a number projected to rise due to aging populations and continued exposure to risk factors like tobacco smoke. While tobacco smoke is a primary risk factor, COPD's complex etiology involves genetic and environmental factors, beginning in utero and progressing throughout life.

For more information about GOLD please contact Katie Langefeld at k.langefeld@goldcopd.org.

 

1. Lytras T, Kogevinas M, Kromhout H, et al. Occupational exposures and 20-year incidence of COPD: the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Thorax 2018; 73(11): 1008-15 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29574416.
2. Lamprecht B, Soriano JB, Studnicka M, et al. Determinants of Underdiagnosis of COPD in National and International Surveys. Chest 2015; 148(4): 971-85
3. Martinez CH, Mannino DM, Jaimes FA, et al. Undiagnosed Obstructive Lung Disease in the United States. Associated Factors and Long-term Mortality. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2015; 12(12): 1788-95
4. Labonté LE, Tan WC, Li PZ, et al. Undiagnosed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Contributes to the Burden of Health Care Use. Data from the CanCOLD Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2016; 194(3): 285-98
5. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Global Strategy for Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of COPD: 2026 Report. 2026 GOLD Report and Pocket Guide - Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease - GOLD

 

---

Method of Research

News article

Trump: A Symptom of the End of the World?

The president of the United States is deeply involved in dealing with the two ways we human beings have figured out how to destroy ourselves (and potentially so much else on this planet): nuclear war and climate change.


Tom Engelhardt
Nov 18, 2025

TomDispatch



When I began TomDispatch in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan, believe me, the world did not look good. But I guarantee you one thing: If you had told me then that, almost a quarter of a century later, the president of the United States would be Donald J. Trump (and had explained to me just who he was), I would have thought you an idiot first class or totally mad! Donald J. Trump as president of the United States, not just once, but twice? In what century? On what planet? You must be kidding! (And what a dreadful joke at that!)

Now, of course, I would have to put all of that in the past tense (and probably add yet more exclamation points)!!



‘Utter Moral Failure’: Critics Aghast at New Reporting That Shows US Elites ‘Scared of Crossing Trump’

Once upon a time, you could never have convinced me (or just about anyone else) that we would find ourselves in such a world. Living in it now, however, it’s all too easy to see—yes!—President Donald Trump as a (if not the) crucial actor (making up his lines as he goes along) in a potentially devastating planetary drama still distinctly in development. (And I’m not even thinking about the possibility that, in the not-too-distant future, he might actually order some kind of invasion of, or assault on, Venezuela!) What’s rarer is to imagine him as a genuine symptom of this world’s end (at least as we human beings once knew it).

(And yes, there are indeed a lot of parentheses in this piece so far, perhaps because, at almost 81 and a half, I feel increasingly parenthetical to this eerily strange world of ours.)

He’s clearly right that heaven will indeed be a problem for him, since he’s so intent on sending us all, himself included, to hell in a handbasket.

Okay, I know, I know, all of that couldn’t sound more extreme. And unfortunately, that’s not even the half of it. After all, at this very moment, the president of the United States is deeply involved in dealing—in a fashion that would once have seemed as unimaginable as Donald Trump himself—with the two ways we human beings have figured out how to destroy ourselves (and potentially so much else on this planet): nuclear war and climate change.

Think of “President” Trump, in short, as a twofer when it comes to potential planetary destruction. And once upon a time (twice upon a time?), who would have imagined that possible when it came to a president of the United States? I’ll say it again: the “president” (and given the strange circumstances of this world of ours, that word does seem to me to need quotation marks!) of—nowhere else but—the United States of America! (And yes, we do seem to be on a planet where exclamation points can’t be used too often!! In fact, we may truly need some new symbol for the extremity of this world of ours!!!)

Okay, let me calm down a bit. After all, so many years after he first entered the White House, it’s true that, if you check statistician Nate Silver’s website, the president’s approval figures are indeed dropping significantly. But that may not, in the end (and “end” is anything but an inappropriate word here), truly matter to the man who clearly thinks better of himself than anyone else on this planet and possibly any other planet, even if he does now worry about whether or not, in the next life, he’ll actually make it to heaven. (“I want to try and get to heaven, if possible,” he said recently. “I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole.”)

Nonetheless, I’d advise Saint Peter, if he’s still holding the keys to that kingdom’s gateway, to watch out. For his own safety, I’d urge him to consider burying those keys and stepping aside. (Oh, and let me use parentheses—and dashes—again here to suggest, sadly enough, that Donald J. Trump couldn’t be less dashingly parenthetical in this all too strange world of ours and, for all we know, the next one, too.) In fact, should he indeed surprise himself and the rest of us by making it to heaven, count on something else—and yes, I’ll need a colon here (lots of punctuation being necessary to deal with You Know Who): Expect him to tear down those ancient pearly gates and begin building a heavenly—or do I mean hellish?—version of Mar-a-Lago up there; in short, a new East Wing of heaven.

Living in a Sci-Fi World

In the 1950s and 1960s, from Brave New World and 1984 to Fahrenheit 451, I grew up on dystopian fiction and sci-fi, but honestly, there wasn’t a shot in hell of a chance that Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, or Ray Bradbury, amazing as each of them was, could ever have imagined Donald Trump. (Think of him, in fact, not as Big Brother but perhaps as Humongous Brother.) If any of them had done so back then, rest assured that they wouldn’t have sold a copy of a book with such a ludicrous, unrealistic character and plot line. It tells you something that former Vice President Dick Cheney, who died recently, the fellow who became “the Darth Vader” of the administration of George W. Bush and helped launch the disastrous post-9/11 American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, by opposing Trump, now seems almost like a positive figure by comparison.

After all, today, Donald J. Trump has his hands on (all over, in fact) the two distinctly apocalyptic and all too science-fictional ways we humans have discovered to do in ourselves and much of the rest of the planet. Only recently, he demanded that the US military start testing nuclear weapons for the first time since 1992. In fact, on Truth Social, just minutes before he met with China’s President Xi Jinping, he stated that he had ordered “the Department of War” to resume such tests. “I’m saying that we’re going to test nuclear weapons like other countries do, yes,” he recently told CBS’ Norah O’Donnell. “Russia’s testing, and China’s testing, but they don’t talk about it.”

Hmm, not only don’t they talk about it, but as far as anyone on this planet other than Donald Trump can tell, like the United States, neither of those countries has tested a nuclear weapon since the 1990s. But no matter. If President Trump wants to set off new nuclear explosions on Planet Earth, why shouldn’t he? What harm could he possibly do? (Admittedly, Russian leader Vladimir Putin is talking about responding in kind and is indeed already testing nuclear delivery systems.). And if it led to a future nuclear confrontation with either Russia or China, honestly, how bad could that possibly be? Well, yes, if such testing were indeed to lead to an actual nuclear conflict, there is the possibility of creating what’s come to be known as “nuclear winter” on Planet Earth, but let’s not go there. (Brrr…) And mind you, that’s the less likely of the two possible ways President Trump could bring end-of-the-world possibilities into the everyday lives of us all.

With Donald Trump in the White House, consider us lucky (after a fashion) that we haven’t yet come up with a third or fourth way to do this planet and ourselves in, because count on this: He’d be on it instantly.

The other way—what might be thought of as a future climate-change summer—would be a slow-motion version of atomic hell, thanks to the pouring of endless amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and so potentially heating this planet to the boiling point. Sadly enough, that possibility seems to fit Donald Trump’s skill set to a T. After all, though few may remember this anymore, he won his presidency the second time around on the stunningly blunt slogan “Drill, Baby, Drill,” which really couldn’t have been a more forthright promise about what he planned to do if reelected. Yes, let me say it one more time—pour greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels into our atmosphere in a distinctly hellish fashion. And give him credit, when it comes to campaign promises made in 2024, he’s proven (at least on this one issue) to be a man of his word.

After all, his record after only one term in office was impressive enough, although, on this strange planet of ours, he was anything but alone. (Good job, Vlad!) Just consider the fact that the last three summers have been the three hottest in recorded history, while 2024 was the warmest year on record (and 2025 is likely to come in second or third). In fact, a recent report found that a person somewhere on Earth is now dying every minute from rising global heat, thanks to the burning of fossil fuels. And none of that is faintly stopping Donald Trump from acting to ensure that the future will be so much worse. After all, barring a total surprise, he’ll have three more years to continue what he’s been doing from the first day of his second term in office: “unleashing” oil, natural gas, and coal in any way he can. (Mind you, to put things in even grimmer perspective, under Joe Biden, a president who claimed to be determined to decarbonize our world, US oil production hit a record high in 2024.)

Only recently, for instance, President Trump opened the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which is estimated to hold billions of barrels of crude oil, to fossil-fuel drilling. And that’s just one—let me put this as mildly as I can, though I’m already sweating—modest act of his. Meanwhile, he’s been going out of his way to discourage the production of clean energy, especially wind power, in any way he can. As the British Guardian reported recently, a total of nine offshore wind projects set to provide electricity to nearly 5 million American households and create about 9,000 jobs in this country are already under investigation or have been paused by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, approvals of oil and gas drilling permits are—I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn—distinctly on the rise.

And give him credit for accuracy: He’s clearly right that heaven will indeed be a problem for him, since he’s so intent on sending us all, himself included, to hell in a handbasket. But here’s the thing when it comes to climate change: None of this should faintly be a surprise. All of it was apparent enough in his first term in office and yet Donald (“drill, baby, drill”) Trump was indeed reelected in 2024, despite what everyone should have known about his plans for this planet and the rest of us.

A Slow-Motion Version of a Global Nuclear Catastrophe

With Donald Trump in the White House, consider us lucky (after a fashion) that we haven’t yet come up with a third or fourth way to do this planet and ourselves in, because count on this: He’d be on it instantly. And yet, sadly enough, two ways are undoubtedly going to be plenty. Or even one way, since I must admit that I find it hard to believe that even Donald Trump is going to get us into an actual nuclear war. Unfortunately, with him, I certainly wouldn’t rule anything out, but somehow it doesn’t seem likely.

And yet, if you think about it, in some sense, we’re already in the equivalent of a nuclear war, since climate change just happens to be a slow-motion version of a global nuclear catastrophe. Think of the release of all those greenhouse gases as indeed a long-term version of that nuclear mushroom cloud, blasting this planet in a fashion that’s likely to lead to an all too literal hell on Earth in the decades to come.

And if we’re indeed heading into such a landscape, then consider Donald J. Trump a slow-motion version of Satan (as are Vladimir Putin and all too many other global leaders). Certainly, his policies are making a mockery of global efforts (however modest) to rein in greenhouse gases. In some way, what lends him such a hand is the very fact that, unlike a nuclear war, climate change, being a slow-motion version of global hell, is strangely hard to take in.

Whether Donald Trump makes it to heaven or not, there can be little question that his legacy on earth will be satanic indeed.




© 2023 TomDispatch.com


Tom Engelhardt
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Type Media Center's TomDispatch.com. His books include: "A Nation Unmade by War" (2018, Dispatch Books), "Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World" (2014, with an introduction by Glenn Greenwald), "Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050"(co-authored with Nick Turse), "The United States of Fear" (2011), "The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's" (2010), and "The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond" (2007).
Full Bio >

Trump Rebuked by Federal Ruling Against Unlawful Racial Gerrymandering in Texas

“The Trump-Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them,” said Rep. Greg Casar.

Texas Sen. Pete Flores, (R-24) looks at the proposed redistricting map as the Texas Senate prepares to take a vote on the redistricting bill passed by the Texas House of Representatives, Aug. 22, 2025.
(Sara Diggins/The Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Nov 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

In a direct rebuke to President Donald Trump’s hopes that mid-decade redistricting in key states could help Republicans retain control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections, a federal court Tuesday ordered Texas to halt the use of its new congressional maps, redrawn earlier this year as part of a GOP effort to maximize its advantage in the Lone Star State.

The unprecedented mid-decade power grab was expected to net Republicans an extra five seats in the House, which, in tandem with other redistricting efforts in Missouri and North Carolina, may have proven critical in their efforts to blunt a blue wave by Democrats in next year’s midterms.

But those efforts ran into an unexpected obstacle when Tuesday’s 2-1 ruling by a panel of three federal judges in Texas determined the maps were “racially gerrymandered,” disempowering nonwhite voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). With a preliminary injunction, the court ordered the state to instead rely on the boundaries it drew in 2021.

In the majority opinion, District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote that while “politics played a role” in Trump’s request for Texas to redraw its maps, the White House explicitly “reframed its request as a demand to redistrict congressional seats based on their racial makeup.”

Specifically, Brown’s decision cited a claim made in a letter to Texas officials from Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, that the existence of four “coalition districts,” where no racial group had a 50% majority, in the 2021 map, was “unconstitutional.” The DOJ threatened legal action against Texas if it did not immediately move to redraw these districts, which it promptly did at the direction of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

This is despite the fact that, as Brown points out, “attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General—who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration—describe the DOJ letter as ‘legally unsound,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘ham-fisted,’ and ‘a mess.’”

“The governor explicitly directed the legislature to draw a new US House map to resolve DOJ’s concerns,” Brown wrote. “In other words, the governor explicitly directed the legislature to redistrict based on race. In press appearances, the governor plainly and expressly disavowed any partisan objective and instead repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts.”

“The legislature adopted those racial objectives,” he continued. “The redistricting bill’s sponsors made numerous statements suggesting that they had intentionally manipulated the districts’ lines to create more majority-Hispanic and majority-Black districts. The bill’s sponsors’ statements suggest they adopted those changes because such a map would be an easier sell than a purely partisan one.”

Republicans will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. But as the Texas Tribune points out, “time is short,” as “candidates only have until December 8 to file for the upcoming election,” which means that the district lines must be determined before then.

Chad Dunn, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said: “It seems they’d have a limited chance of success at the Supreme Court because the evidence is so overwhelming. Everyone involved said they were drawing the lines on the basis of race. I don’t see how the Supreme Court sets that aside.”

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has signaled that it intends to strike down Section 2 of the VRA entirely. But that case is currently scheduled for early next year and could not be brought onto the shadow docket in time to override the ruling blocking the Texas map for 2026.

While it could have major implications for future elections, likely allowing the GOP to net over a dozen additional seats, in the near term, Trump’s gambit for aggressive racial gerrymandering may blow up in his and his party’s face---at least temporarily.

Texas’ maps kicked off a retaliatory gerrymandering push by Democrats to redraw maps to their advantage in blue states. That effort culminated in California voters’ overwhelming passage earlier this month of Proposition 50, which overrode the state’s independent redistricting commission and allowed the state legislature to draw maps that handed Democrats an additional five seats. Similar efforts may soon be underway in New York and Virginia.

With the cushion provided by Texas suddenly yanked away, Democrats now appear to be the clear winners of the gerrymandering war if things stand as they are. Instead of gaining the GOP five extra seats, Trump’s gambit could end up costing it five.

“Today’s ruling is a rebuke of Texas Republicans who caved to Donald Trump and trampled the voting rights of their constituents,” said Adrian Shelley, the Texas director of Public Citizen. “Gov. Abbott and his allies in the Legislature have forgotten their independent streak as Texans. Perhaps they can find the courage that Republicans in a few other states have to tell the president no.”

Meanwhile, Texas Democrats previously at risk of being gerrymandered out of their seats, rejoiced in the wake of Tuesday’s ruling.

This includes Austin Reps. Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett, who, in anticipation of seeing their districts smushed into one, have spent the past several months engaged in a sort of shadow primary, which resulted in Doggett saying he’d retire if the maps were upheld. If Tuesday’s ruling holds, both of their districts would remain intact.

“The Trump Abbott maps are clearly illegal, and I’m glad these judges have blocked them,” Casar said after Tuesday’s ruling. “If this decision stands, I look forward to running for reelection in my current district.”

While he celebrated the ruling, he said, “no matter what, we must fight to pass a federal ban on gerrymandering once and for all.”