Climate, Indigenous Groups Rip Trump GOP for ‘Handing Over the Arctic Refuge to Big Oil’

“The oil industry’s allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities.”

Caribou migrate in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska on June 29, 2024.
(Photo by Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Apr 17, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

Indigenous leaders joined with climate and wildlife defenders on Friday to blast President Donald Trump’s administration and Republicans in Congress over the newly announced fossil fuel lease sale for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s Coastal Plain in Alaska.

The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management revealed Friday that it will hold the first of four legally mandated lease sales on June 5. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed last summer—requires BLM to hold the other three sales by 2035.

ANWR’s Coastal Plain spans over 1.5 million acres and is known for its biodiversity. As a BLM webpage details, it is also believed to contain 4.25-11.8 billion barrels of “technically recoverable oil,” according to US Geological Survey estimates.

Trump returned to the White House last year backed by Big Oil’s campaign cash, and his deputy interior secretary, Kate MacGregor, said Friday that “after three acts of Congress and several successful lawsuits making it abundantly clear that oil and gas leasing in this area of Alaska is lawful, it is a great honor to once again announce another Coastal Plain lease sale.”

MacGregor framed the forthcoming sale as just one piece of the administration’s pro-fossil fuel agenda, adding that “President Trump has long supported Alaska’s important contribution to American energy dominance, and Interior is proud to take the necessary and durable steps to unleash these important resources on behalf of the American people.”

Earlier attempts to open up ANWR to drilling suggest that the sale may not draw much industry interest. Taxpayers for Common Sense pointed out Friday that two previous ones required by the Trump GOP’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act “were originally estimated to bring taxpayers almost $1 billion in revenue but fell far short of this projection. The first lease sale, held in January 2021, brought in just $16.5 million. The second lease sale, held in January 2025, attracted no bidders and generated no revenue.”

However, as the Anchorage Daily News reported, the plan for the next sale “comes on the heels of another recent lease sale, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to the west of the refuge, that drew heavy interest from oil companies,” which “raises questions about how much bidding might occur in the refuge,” particularly as Trump’s war on Iran has driven up global oil prices.

Still, critics highlighted the previous ANWR sales—including the Wilderness Society’s Alaska senior manager, Meda DeWitt, who said: “Once again, the oil industry’s allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities to sustain their cultures and lifestyles for generations to come.”

“Two previous lease sales have already been economic failures, proving that the absurd Arctic Refuge leasing program should be eliminated and permanent protection must be provided for the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd,” DeWitt argued.



America Fitzpatrick of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) similarly said that “time and again, the American people have said that they oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The last lease sale in 2024 yielded no bids. Drilling here is not only bad economic—it’s reckless and wildly unpopular. Instead of further handcuffing us to be more dependent on fossil fuels, the administration should focus on prioritizing cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy sources like clean energy.”

“We simply cannot drill our way out of high energy costs,” declared Fitzpatrick, the group’s conservation program director. “The US is already producing more oil and gas than ever before, but when Trump forced a global energy crisis, prices skyrocketed once again. LCV stands with the Gwich’in people in their fight to ensure there is no drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Not now, not ever.”

The Gwich’in, Indigenous people who live in Alaska and Canada, have long defended the refuge from fossil fuel intrusion, and are currently engaged in litigation over the Trump Interior Department’s leasing program for the Coastal Plain.

“The Neets’ąįį Gwich’in have made our position clear that any development on the Coastal Plain would have irreversible, adverse effects on our people, our culture, and our way of life,” Raeann Garnett, first chief of the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, said Friday. “This lease sale, once again, disregards our sovereignty and is a direct threat to the sacred land that sustains our people.”

Karlas Norman, first chief of the Venetie Village Council, stressed that “no amount of money will make this land any less sacred to our people or any less vital to our way of life. The Trump administration’s most recent actions to advance oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain does not change the fact that this land is sacred, that industry has walked away, and that the Gwich’in people will never stop fighting to protect it.”



Galen Gilbert, first chief of the Arctic Village Council, charged that “the Trump administration’s relentless push to auction off this sacred land despite overwhelming public opposition and industry that has already signaled they are not interested, makes clear that this administration values corporate interests over the rights and lives of Indigenous peoples.”

Gilbert also vowed that “we will continue to fight with every tool available to protect the Coastal Plain for our children and all future generations.”

Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, also pledged that “the Gwich’in Nation remains committed to be a voice for the caribou, and to fight oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge.”

“We condemn these efforts by the Trump administration to exploit the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd for short-term gain, and we know that the majority of Americans stand beside us in opposing development in this cherished and irreplaceable landscape,” Moreland continued. “We have been raising our voices and fight[ing] for the protection of this sacred land and our way of life for decades—and we are not backing down now.”

Also noting the US public’s position, Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at Alaska Wilderness League, put pressure on the industry to stay away from the lease sale later this spring.

“For decades, the American people have recognized that the Arctic Refuge is not an industrial zone for oil development, and this sale simply runs counter to common sense,” said Moderow. “Any oil and gas company that is even thinking about buying these leases should know that, if they do, they will be sending a clear message to the American people—that no place in Alaska is too sacred to drill in a quest for corporate profits. We urge companies to take a pass on the Arctic Refuge lease sale, and we look forward to rightfully restoring protections for this landscape in the years to come.”

According to the Anchorage Daily News, “Elizabeth Manning, a spokesperson with Earthjustice, said in an email Friday that any new leases will be subject to a lawsuit brought by Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Earth.”

Global warming causes Colombian glacier to disappear


By AFP
April 16, 2026


(COMBO) This combination of pictures created on April 16, 2026, shows satellite images obtained from Copernicus Sentinel Data 2026 showing the Cerros de la Plaza glacier (L) with some snow cover on December 28, 2015, and without snow cover in February 28, 2026 in the Sierra Nevada del Cocuy, northeastern Colombia. Where there used to be ice, now there are only rocks: one of the glaciers in a chain of snow-capped mountains in the Colombian Andes has vanished due to the high temperatures driven by climate change. Satellite images show how the ice sheet covering the mountain gradually shrank from 2015 until it disappeared in March 2026. - Copyright POOL/AFP Stefan Rousseau

Where once there was ice, only rock remains.

One of the glaciers in a chain of snow-capped mountains in the Colombian Andes has vanished due to high temperatures driven by climate change.

Satellite images show how the ice sheet covering the mountain gradually shrank from 2015 until it disappeared completely in March 2026.

Situated in the Sierra Nevada del Cocuy range, in the northeast of Colombia, the Cerros de la Plaza glacier was officially declared disappeared last week by the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM).

Its surface area shrank from five square kilometers (1.93 square miles) in the 19th century to zero today, according to the agency.

“Climate change is a reality that is already transforming our territories. And what is at stake is not only the landscape, but the very balance of these ecosystems,” IDEAM said in a statement.

The Colombian Andes, like the country’s other ecosystems, are incredibly biodiverse, home to condors and mammals such as the spectacled bear.

The Sierra Nevada del Cocuy, with peaks over 5,000 meters above sea level, is one of the last six remaining glacial systems in the country, where the area covered by ice has shrunk by 90 percent since the 19th century, according to the environment ministry.

Glaciers feed the Andes’ freshwater sources, sustain mountain ecosystems and play a crucial role in crop irrigation, fishing, and other human activities.

The last 11 years have been the hottest 11 on record, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service and Berkeley Earth, a California-based non-profit research organization.

A study published in Science magazine in January 2023 predicted that half the planet’s glaciers will have melted by 2100 even if the world meets its goal under the Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C.

The global food system is on the brink of collapse

Kayla Nichols,

 Common Dreams
April 17, 2026 


FILE PHOTO: A wheat crop ready for harvest in a farmer's field near Kindersley, Saskatchewan, Canada September 5, 2024. REUTERS/Todd Korol/File Photo

What does Big Ag have to do with the Strait of Hormuz? A lot, actually, when you consider that almost every so-called efficiency that industrial agriculture relies on to operate flows through this waterway. And now it is closed, threatening global food security.

And what is the primary source of the problem? Our reliance on fossil fuels.

What do fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics have in common?

First of all, each is a leg of the stool that makes up the rickety foundation of our global agrifood system.

Plastics are involved in every stage of our food and farming systems from soil to spoon: plastic polymers are used in some mulches, agrichemical containers are generally made of plastics, harvest crates and produce packages are often plastic, most processed foods are packaged in plastic or plastic-lined containers, and single-use plastics are still widely used in plates, bowls, cups, straws, napkins, and utensils.


In the 1960s, the world used between 60 and 70 million tonnes of fertilizer (synthetic nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, plus organic nitrogen) per year. But that usage has steadily risen ever since: in 2023 we used nearly 183 million tonnes of fertilizer. This rise can be attributed in part to the rising needs of a growing global population, but it is more indicative of our over-reliance on fertilizers as a way to combat the increasing effects of climate change. This season, farmers are already reporting untenable increases in fertilizer prices.


Big Ag has and will continue to rely on Big Oil to make Big Money as long as they can, but the United States’ and Israel’s unconstitutional war on Iran starkly illustrates just how fragile this house of cards is.

Pesticides are the other side of the agrichemical input coin. Fertilizers and pesticides go hand-in-hand, when it comes to global agrifood systems. The foundation of industrialized farming is monocropping (growing a single crop over and over on the same piece of land). The problem with monocropping is that it is extremely input intensive because monocropped land is more vulnerable to pest and disease pressure. And over time, this vulnerability increases, requiring more and more pesticides as tolerance builds. This creates a vicious cycle called the Pesticide Treadmill that is hard for farmers to escape without support.

But, critically, synthetic plastics, fertilizers, and pesticides are all derivatives of fossil fuels, mass quantities of which must be funneled through one waterway before becoming various inputs and components of our centralized, industrialized agrifood system. Rather than curbing our use of climate-harming fossil fuel-derived plastics, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides, our agrifood systems use more and more each year, exacerbating the problem and further locking us into a fragile food system.

A Strait Chokepoint

According to the Congressional Research Service, over a quarter of the world’s supply of oil comes through the Strait of Hormuz, impacting farmers’ ability to get seeds in the ground and food to tables. Additionally, 20% of natural gas transits the Strait, which is a component of many agrichemical inputs. But, byproducts of oil and gas production also pass through the Strait, including helium which is used in semiconductor manufacturing (semiconductors like silicon are necessary for all modern technology), and urea, which is one of the most commonly used synthetic fertilizers. Over a third of the world’s urea must pass through the Strait.

In short, global agrifood systems rely intrinsically on fossil fuels and their byproducts to function, and when supply lines are disrupted, even briefly, the domino effects could be catastrophic. This article is not meant to be a metaphor, but an urgent warning and a window to our way out.


The most important—and maddening—thing to know is that our agrifood systems need not rely so heavily on fossil fuels and their byproducts to feed the world’s people.

Big Ag has and will continue to rely on Big Oil to make Big Money as long as they can, but the United States’ and Israel’s unconstitutional war on Iran starkly illustrates just how fragile this house of cards is. As countries around the world issue energy conservation mandates and brace for worsening inflation and supply chain instability, we should consider how agroecological farming practices could not only make our agrifood systems safer by reducing exposures of harmful pesticides and curb climate change, but also make the systems that feed us more resilient by decentralizing them, improving resilience to climate change-induced drought, floods, and pest pressures, and extricating them out from under the thumb of fossil fuel corporations.

Corporate greed has optimized humanity to the brink of mass starvation. But the principles of agroecology center food sovereignty (the opposite of corporate control), labor justice, and land stewardship.


Food systems grounded in agroecology are ones in which:All people have access to healthy, safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food.
Farmers and agricultural workers work with the land to protect, restore, and sustain natural resources and ecosystems.

Agriculture utilizes ecological management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improving adaptation and resilience to climate change.

Synthetic chemical inputs are reduced or eliminated whenever possible.

The production, sharing, commerce, and consumption of food is built on an economy which prioritizes thriving communities, resilient local markets, and worker rights.

Diverse cultures, identities, and knowledge systems are embraced along with equitable forms of social organization.

Power in food and farming systems is redistributed; shifting away from transnational corporations so that the rights of food producers, farm workers, and agricultural communities are centered.

These principles are not far fetched; they’re economically viable solutions that are being practiced successfully around the world already. Systemic shifts toward global agrifood systems that prioritize the principles of agroecology could help us to solve the triple planetary crises of pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change.

Jake Tapper devastates RFK Jr. with his own words after secretary denies autism remarks

Matthew Chapman
April 17, 2026 
RAW STORY





President Donald Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary tried to walk back his disparaging remarks against children with autism and people with disabilities at his congressional hearing on Friday — but CNN's Jake Tapper had a clip ready to hold him to account.

"Another round of intense questioning for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.," said Tapper. "On Capitol Hill today, lawmakers pressed the Department of Health and Human Services secretary on his promotion of medical misinformation. In one of the most hostile moments from today's hearing, Democratic Congresswoman Lucy McBath of Georgia scolded RFK Jr. about his past remarks on autism, specifically his claim that autism, quote, 'destroys families' and that children with autism 'have no future.'"

Tapper rolled the clip.

"Some people with disabilities do need direct care to assist them with activities like going to the bathroom, but that does not mean that they are somehow less than or unable to lead fulfilling and productive lives as you," said McBath, to which Kennedy replied, "Nobody said they were."

"'And nobody said they were,' RFK Jr. said," repeated Tapper. "But Secretary Kennedy, someone did say they were, and it was you."

He then played another, earlier clip of Kennedy giving a speech.

"Destroys families and more importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which our children," said Kennedy in the clip. "These are kids who will never pay taxes. They'll never hold a job. They'll never play baseball. They'll never write a poem. They'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted."

"Today, Congresswoman McBath asked RFK Jr. to apologize for his remarks," said Tapper. "He refused, stating that he was specifically talking about profound autism, although that's not what he said. He said autism destroys families."

SCOTUS

Right-wing justice comes to decision after months of retirement rumors: report

Matthew Chapman
April 17, 2026 

RAW STORY


U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for their group portrait at the Supreme Court on October 7, 2022. Seated (L-R): Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan. Standing (L-R): Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo

One of the oldest and most right-wing justices on the Supreme Court appears not to be retiring after all, Fox News reported on Friday.

Justice Samuel Alito, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, "'is not stepping down this term and is in the process of hiring the rest of his clerks for the next term,' a source told Fox News Digital. Two other sources told Fox News that Alito is not retiring this term, which lasts until the Supreme Court's new year kicks off in October. Justices tend to hire their clerks two to three years in advance, although that process is not necessarily indicative of a justice's retirement plans."

The news follows months of speculation that Alito was preparing to retire at the end of this term — fueled by the fact he was preparing to release a book in the fall. Touring to promote the book would have been easier to plan if he had intentions of not sitting on the court by next term.

Alito remaining on the Supreme Court ups the stakes of the midterm elections in the fall, as a Democratic Senate majority, or even just a more evenly divided Senate, could severely limit President Donald Trump's ability to nominate a Supreme Court justice if a vacancy opens up after this year.

"The revelation that Alito is reportedly not planning to step down comes after President Donald Trump told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo he is 'prepared' to appoint up to three Supreme Court justices if vacancies arise," noted the report. "Trump added he has a shortlist of nominees in mind, though he did not mention any names."

Trump was able to appoint three Supreme Court justices in his first term, giving Republicans an even firmer advantage on cases heard by the court.

American Airlines shoots down United merger rumors while flattering Trump

Matthew Chapman
April 17, 2026 
RAW STORY


An American Airlines plane (Shutterstock)

Reports this week indicated that Scott Kirby, the CEO of United Airlines, went directly to President Donald Trump to sell him on the idea of a merger with American Airlines, a move that would leave the U.S. aviation industry with just two "legacy" carriers.

At least for now, however, executives at American are shooting down the idea, and publicly repudiated it in a statement posted to X that nonetheless overflowed with effusive praise for the Trump administration.

"We appreciate the leadership and strong support of President Trump, Secretary Duffy and numerous other leaders in the Administration who have demonstrated expertise and an ongoing commitment to continue to improve the world's best aviation industry," began the statement.

"American Airlines is not engaged with or interested in any discussions regarding a merger with United Airlines," the statement continued. "While changes in the broader airline marketplace may be necessary, a combination with United would be negative for competition and for consumers, and therefore inconsistent with our understanding of the Administration's philosophy toward the industry and principles of antitrust law. Our focus will remain on executing on our strategic objectives and positioning American to win for the long term."

"We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the Administration as it takes steps to strengthen the broader airline industry," the statement concluded.


This follows reporting that industry lobbyists seeking approval for megamergers that might skirt antitrust law have broadly adopted a strategy of lobbying Trump and those immediately around him directly, rather than going through the traditional attorneys at the Justice Department in charge of reviewing such deals.

SUPPORTING WHITE SUPREMACIST TRAITORS


'Open season!' Right-wing outlet melts down as Confederate groups lose tax breaks

Daniel Hampton
April 17, 2026 
RAW STORY

Columbia, South Carolina - July, 10, 2017: Confederate activist attend a flag raising event held in protest of the the Confederate flag's removal from the S.C. State House in 2015. (Photo credit: Crush Rush /Shutterstock)





A right-wing publication is in full meltdown mode after Virginia's Democratic governor signed a bill stripping Confederate heritage organizations of their state tax exemptions, calling it an act of war against Southern identity and a harbinger of leftist tyranny.



Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed the legislation this week, yanking tax exemptions for several Confederate groups, including the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. She also signed a separate bill ending the production of specialty license plates bearing the likeness of Robert E. Lee.

The Federalist responded with barely contained fury.



ALSO READ: Trump and 'gang of thugs' slammed as congresswoman joins outrage over teen snatched by ICE



"Spanberger is sending an unequivocal message — it’s open season on those who would honor American history and the heritage of their ancestors. And the full force of the state will be used to quash them," wrote Hayden Daniel, a staff editor at the outlet.

He uncorked a dire warning for conservatives.


"The left cannot settle for merely snuffing out the fire of America’s heritage; they will ultimately seek to snuff out the people who continue to tend the flame. And in states like Virginia, they have the full power of the bureaucratic state at their disposal," wrote Daniel.


The piece framed the removal of the tax exemptions as an act of political persecution against organizations it described as largely devoted to civic work, like helping homeless shelters and food banks.

State Delegate Alex Askew, who sponsored the bill and has pushed for it for years, called Spanberger's signature "a proud moment and an important step forward for Virginia."

The legislation is part of a broader Democratic-led effort in Virginia to shed the state's legacy as the former capital of the Confederacy, a yearslong project that has included the removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces.


Critics of Confederate heritage organizations argue the groups have long romanticized the Confederacy and glossed over the central role of slavery in the Civil War, while benefiting from taxpayer-funded advantages unavailable to other civic groups.

'Heartbreaking': Backlash in red state as Trump kills farming program over DEI concerns

Berenice Garcia,

 Texas Tribune
April 17, 2026 


A farm worker in a field. (Shutterstock)

HARLINGEN — For more than a decade, Diana Padilla has been teaching Texans in the Rio Grande Valley how to farm.

For four hours on Sundays, she and her husband, Saul Padilla, would help their student farmers at a community garden the couple had set up on their farm by preparing the soil for them, teaching them how to use the space, and telling them what would be good to plant and what wouldn’t be.

“We were mostly there for, like, pep talk,” Padilla said.

The idea for the community garden came from their weekends spent at the farmer’s market, where some people couldn’t afford their organic vegetables. If the people couldn’t afford them, Padilla thought, maybe she could teach them how to grow their own.

Her mission dramatically expanded when, in the summer of 2023, she learned she had been awarded a federal grant to teach the rest of the state how to till the land.


Her nonprofit, HOPE for Small Farm Sustainability, had received $7.5 million to educate Texans interested in farming. As part of the grant, Padilla could hire educators in other regions outside the Valley and purchase land to harvest.


Her first hire lived about 500 miles away in Kaufman County, near Dallas.

Padilla was on the cusp of hiring three more people in Central Texas. But her plans to expand came to a sudden halt last month when the U.S. Department of Agriculture notified her that the government was terminating the grant as part of President Donald Trump’s pledge to eliminate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.

“It was heartbreaking,” Padilla said.


In a March 23 letter, the USDA said it canceled the grant following a review of the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program, which was started during the Biden administration. The USDA alleged that the program was “rife with DEI preferences” and an example of wasteful spending.

Padilla vowed to appeal the decision. She said there was nothing about her program — which is open to anyone interested in learning about farming — that explicitly focused on DEI. She was adamant her organization would debunk allegations of wasteful spending.

Now, HOPE has a slim window to convince the federal government to restore funding. If Padilla cannot, at risk are her efforts to empower would-be farmers amid a dramatic trend of farm loss across Texas, and to ensure the agriculture economy persists outside of big farming.


“We are going to appeal, but we're going to need everybody's support,” Padilla said. “We have an obligation to safeguard our food system for the future of Texas.”
One-on-one training

Jamie Cumming had been teaching local residents in Kaufman County about gardening and foraging. She ran a small homestead academy she led from her home and small farm.


As a struggling small farmer with six children, she couldn’t afford to teach all the skills she wanted to pass on for free, so she was excited to learn about HOPE and that it was looking to hire educators across the state to teach aspiring farmers what they needed to know to build a sustainable farm.

She took the job in October 2024 and has held workshops a few times a month that are open to anyone who wants to learn how to farm, along with classes at the community garden.

But because of the USDA’s decision to pull the grant, the programming and Cumming’s job in Kaufman County ended.


“It's a big disappointment, because it was going so well,” Cumming said.

HOPE had paid for equipment such as a tiller, drip line, landscape fabric and seeds. It’s also paid for water, a classroom and educational guest speakers.

About 27 people had been assigned a plot of land in Kaufman County that the county is allowing them to use. The aspiring farmers ranged from young families to a 78-year-old woman who farmed when she was younger.


Cumming said she didn’t collect demographic data from the people who attended her workshops. She estimated she had about four Black or Hispanic participants among the 27 farmers.

What most had in common was that they had full-time jobs and were trying to learn how to farm during their free time. Part of their education included learning about the right season for certain plants to grow, how to irrigate, how to identify plants, and how to mix seed-starting soil.

“That one-on-one training has really been a blessing for so many who are trying "to do this,” Cumming said. “We need to help that and let that flourish.”

Funding for the USDA’s Increasing Land program came from the American Rescue Plan Act, a Biden-era COVID-19 relief bill, to improve access to land. However, the agency, which is now under the Trump administration’s leadership, concluded that the grant awards did little to improve land access.


“Under the guise of increasing land access for producers, the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program included no minimum requirement for direct producer support,” the USDA said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “Instead, the program permitted the abuse of federal funds, including expenditures on the purchasing of a barbeque smoker, construction of a gazebo, massages, and for one awardee, a $20,000 budget for ink pens alone.”

The agency did not respond to questions specifically about HOPE and its activities.

Padilla insists she spent the money correctly. Of the $7.5 million grant, HOPE had spent less than 10%. Most of the $700,000 that has been spent was used for equipment and education for farmers.


The majority of the grant funds, 59%, were budgeted to purchase additional land, but none of those transactions had been completed.

Padilla said HOPE had identified and was close to purchasing four properties in Central Texas — close to Houston, San Antonio, and Austin — for people in those areas who were interested in farming. The land would have been used for community farming that early-stage farmers could share and continue learning.
Losing farm land

Padilla and her husband started their own farm, Yahweh’s All Natural Farm and Garden, in 2008. Her husband is the farmer and she is the entrepreneur and, together, they made a business of his passion.

It took a lot of hard work, knowing how to grow and knowing how to market their products.

She knew if early-stage farmers weren’t persistent, they would likely quit, so they set out to teach people how to do that with the help of other USDA grants.

They started their first community gardens on their 75-acre farm where aspiring farmers could learn from the couple. Then in 2014, they officially launched HOPE.

Padilla’s effort to increase the number of farmers faces staggering odds. In the 25 years between 1997 and 2022, Texas lost more than 3.7 million acres of working land, according to data from Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute. Working land is privately-owned farms and ranches that produce food and provide wildlife habitat. Of those, 1.8 million acres were lost in the final five years.

Within that same 25-year period, the Rio Grande Valley, where Padilla is based, lost 751,000 acres of farmland.

Small family farms are the most prevalent type of farm. In 2024, they made up 86% of all farms in the U.S. That’s down from 2021, when they made up 89%.

Salomon Torres, projects and grants adviser for HOPE, said the loss of farmland is a disturbing trend. It contributes to illiteracy among the general public about where their food comes from, among other consequences.

“Agriculture has always been a contributor to a local economy, as far as jobs, as far as keeping land productive,” Torres said. “If land becomes completely urban, it's going to desensitize people about the source of their food.”

Salomon Torres, team member at the nonprofit HOPE for Small Farm Sustainability, speaks at a news conference about a canceled USDA grant the organization received nearly two years ago on April 1 in Harlingen.


The accessibility of land for locally-sourced food is considered significant for people’s health but also for their well-being, said Judith McGeary, executive director of Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance.

“I think it's a threat to national security,” McGeary said. “Because when we cannot raise food in this country, we are reliant on imports, which we already are, to a great extent — far more than most people realize.”

The loss of small farmers was not due to a lack of interest, McGeary said. There has been a growing interest in farming among young people, but what is less discussed, she said, is how often those young farmers fail because of the lack of land, infrastructure and hands-on support.

“Very smart, talented, motivated people often cannot make a go of it,” she said. “And that’s not just a problem for them, it’s a loss for all of us.”

Advocates for small farmers in Texas say educational programs like the one HOPE was providing are needed across the state.

P. Wade Ross, director of the Texas Small Farmers and Ranchers Community Based Organization, said the fundamental issue is that many government bureaucrats don’t know the farming landscape. They make decisions like cutting off funding for HOPE, not realizing the consequences.

“Why do you need to do that when this is a program that's helping you achieve all the initiatives that you say are your initiatives?” Ross said.

“What happens a lot of times is people who are the decision-makers get so caught up in what they don't want,” he said “and they don't realize they're cutting their arm off to get rid of what they don't want.”

Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc.

This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.

 

Can the Left Still Win? Varoufakis, Corbyn, Polanski & Blakeley

By Yanis Varoufakis

April 13, 2026

Source: DiEM25

Can the left still win, and what does resistance look like in a time of war, inequality, and political crisis?

At DiEM25’s Resistance Is Existence event in London, Yanis Varoufakis is joined by Jeremy Corbyn, Zack Polanski, and Grace Blakeley for a powerful panel on Gaza, class power, democracy, and the future of the left.

This marks the first time Jeremy Corbyn and Zack Polanski have shared a stage together. The event also features a message from Francesca Albanese, who was unable to attend in person.

This conversation explores what it means to resist today — from solidarity with Palestine to the fight for economic justice, climate action, and democratic power — and asks how resistance can become a force capable of winning real change.

Topics include:
• Gaza, Palestine, and international law
• Francesca Albanese’s message on this political moment
• Class struggle, inequality, and wealth concentration
• Elections vs movement-building
• Housing, public services, and economic democracy
• Media power and political narratives
• How to resist, and how to win

Speakers:
Yanis Varoufakis
Jeremy Corbyn
Zack Polanski
Grace Blakeley
Message from Francesca Albanese

Event: Resistance Is Existence Hosted by: DiEM25 Location: London SUPPORT DiEM25

More info: https://diem25.org/resistance/

 

Anwar Shaikh Shows Us How Capitalism Works and How It Fails

By Güney Işıkara, Patrick Mokre

 April 14, 2026

Source: Jacobin

Image by Andenick/Wikimediacommons, in public domain

Heretics always remain tied to the church. To break out, what you do is nail your theses on the door, turn around and develop your own framework.” Most students of Anwar Shaikh, including the coauthors of this piece, will have heard this bold statement in his classes.

As one of the most important radical economists, Shaikh has not only advanced fierce criticisms of mainstream economic theory’s dogmas but also provided his own consistent framework with which to analyze capitalism, grounded in the works of classical political economists and especially Karl Marx.

Shaikh’s 2016 book, Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises, combines his radical theorizing over the course of four decades into an integrated, coherent framework. At the heart of it is his unique reconstruction of real competition from the writings of Marx and the identification of the turbulent patterns that characterize capitalism — in other words, his understanding of why capitalism is rooted in conflict rather than harmony.

Four Phases

Another distinctive feature of Shaikh’s approach is the combination of theory and empirical inquiry. Throughout his work, the leading themes remain the centrality of profits for capitalist economies and real competition as their regulating principle.

Shaikh’s thinking has evolved alongside the political struggles of the last fifty years. With nearly a hundred academic papers and many more public articles to his name, it is a challenge to generalize about his ideas. But we can broadly categorize Shaikh’s contribution into four phases.

The first phase involved criticizing the economic mainstream and reconstructing Marxist concepts as alternatives in the 1970s and ’80s. The second was his development of a consistent approach to macro-dynamics and international trade in the 1980s and ’90s.

The third phase saw the construction of appropriate empirical grounds on which to test Shaikh’s hypotheses and to challenge the way mainstream economics constructs and employs data. The latest phase, in the period since the publication of Capitalism, has broadened the application of real competition and turbulent dynamics to the study of inequality, econo-physics, trade imbalances, and macroeconomics.

Humbug Economics

Shaikh entered the academic stage in 1974, only one year after finishing his PhD at Columbia University, when he attacked Robert Solow’s predominant model of capitalist development in a paper titled “The Humbug Production Function.” Solow’s perspective, according to which capital and labor would be rewarded at their marginal productivities, was the backbone of neoclassical economics at the time (and would remain the textbook model for decades to come).

This framework claims to explain why poor countries stay poor while rich countries get richer, thereby legitimizing (or ignoring) imperialist power structures. Shaikh’s cheekily named paper demonstrated that the purported success of the model in fitting empirical data stems from an underlying accounting identity and that it would fit a diagram spelling out “humbug” just as well.

Since 1972, Shaikh had been working at the New School for Social Research, a hotbed for radical and Marxist economics at the time. His publications in the 1970s recovered some classical analyses and constructed new syntheses, a basis on which real capitalism, rather than an idealized, harmonious version of it, could be understood.

Shaikh provided a solution to the transformation problem, one of the key issues associated with Marx’s analysis of production prices. In doing so, he rebutted the claim that Marx’s theory of competition, value, and price was inconsistent. He also elaborated on Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis.

In 1983, Shaikh provided the entries on concentration and centralization of capital, economic crises, the falling rate of profit, pauperization, and the reserve army of labor in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. After a follow up to the “humbug” paper, he also engaged in debates on the theory of competition put forward by Maurice Dobb as well as with the followers of Piero Sraffa on neo-Ricardianism.

These contributions are central to an understanding of capitalism as a social system fueled by the exploitation of human labor, as they reconstruct Marx’s categories and classical analyses to provide an understanding of the dynamics that govern the world we live in. Shaikh’s approach treats capitalism as a historically specific social system, with a beginning and a potential end. A rigorous analysis of capitalism therefore is indispensable for overcoming it.

On the surface, the contributions in these early years attacked the foundations of mainstream economics and defended Marx’s framework on multiple fronts. They mainly spoke to academics and students, at a time when there were many more people actively engaged with Marxism as well as socialist organizing than there are today.

However, if we look at this first phase in the context of the following decades, we can say that it laid the groundwork for understanding the fundamental workings of capitalism and what propelled them. Without this understanding, the Left is defenseless against claims that capitalism is natural, eternal, or simply in need of better regulation.

Real Competition

If the humbug paper showed profit to be the fuel for capitalist growth, Shaikh’s 1978 and 1980 papers revealed real competition as the inner mechanism of its engine. The basic argument is that competition has nothing to do with passive-price taking, which lies at heart of neoclassical perfect competition.

In fact, firms within industries dynamically and strategically underbid each other on prices in order to eliminate rivals from the market. Meanwhile, the relationship between industries sees investment being diverted toward the ones where the highest above-average profit rates on new capital are expected. The intensifying competition in these sectors pushes market prices down, with profit rates falling back to the normal level or even below it.

Both dimensions of competition, within and between industries, are turbulent and dynamic. In Shaikh’s words, they resemble a brutal war rather than a decorous ballet. This is the opposite of the free-market fairytale expressed by perfect competition theory. “Real competition” became a cornerstone of Shaikh’s work.

It also marks the transition to a second phase in his work. Building on methodological discussions and his fundamental criticisms of predominant economic thinking, which targeted the neoclassical school without sparing Post-Keynesian or Marxist authors, he extended his analysis toward the field of macroeconomic dynamics.

The 1980s and ’90s witnessed accelerated globalization with well-known ramifications: significant asymmetries in growth and international trade, higher levels of inequality, and the growing prominence of finance, accompanied by turbulence and crises. Shaikh’s contributions at that time constructed a new understanding of macro-dynamics with a special emphasis on international trade, revealing its benefits for the imperialist core at the expense of the neocolonial periphery.

His seminal papers in this period discussed the role of finance and the stock markets, effective demand, exchange rates, and competition. He never lost his interest in theorizing economic crises and published work that linked profit-rate dynamics to the downturns of the global economy. Another recurrent theme is real competition, this time in the context of international trade, which drives exchange rate fluctuations and international value transfers.

This is a key factor to take account of when we are studying global capitalism and imperialist power structures, as the global division of labor is not actually shaped by the harmony that comparative advantage is supposed to bring about between countries. Instead, in the relentless competitive struggle between capitals, the strong extend their power, while countries with weaker capitals are trapped in perpetual debt. International inequalities are not inefficiencies inherited from precapitalist structures — they express the functioning of the capitalist machine in its best-oiled state.

Data and Empirical Categories

Shaikh also understood that mainstream economics doesn’t just theorize capitalism incorrectly — it also measures it incorrectly. Around the turn of the century, after laying out his understanding of global macro-dynamics, his publications shifted to empirical analysis and the appropriate data sources for it. In contrast to many orthodox as well as heterodox economists, Shaikh’s work has always been marked by the co-development of analysis in theory and data.

In his classes, he would describe this as a fundamentally Marxist method: to look at the data and construct basic economic categories from it; to set these in relation, explore their dynamics, and provide a theory explaining the relations at hand, then to check if the results fit the data and validate one’s explanation of it. Neither a nihilistic empiricist nor a bloodless theorist, Shaikh would often warn: “If the data does not agree with your theory, it is usually not the data that is wrong.”

Be that as it may, economic data is often constructed to exactly fit the neoclassical models that predominate in economic institutions and central banks. Profits are conceptualized as factor incomes on capital, rather than the difference between market prices and total cost; capital stock and labor hours are constructed to fit the same production function that Shaikh attacked as humbug in his first paper.

His landmark 1994 book with Ahmet Tonak, Measuring the Wealth of Nations, can still serve as a reference work helping us to understand how the construction of data is entwined with theory, and how to formulate the categories necessary for real economic analysis from national accounts. Numerous papers and books on the question of data, modeling, and applications followed.

This period coincides with the emergence of the anti-globalization movement and renewed crises of international capitalism at the turn of the century. There was an appetite for alternatives to Reaganite economic policies, especially when it came to the consequences of those policies around the globe. But finding concrete answers required an independent methodological apparatus, and Shaikh’s work on empirically testing competition between industries and economic policy in the area of growth enabled a lively literature of international comparisons.

Capitalism

In 2016, Oxford University Press published Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises. Nearly a thousand pages long, Shaikh’s magnum opus offers a coherent framework with which to confront the mainstream economic paradigm as well as its satellites that only challenge and deviate from the orthodoxy on limited grounds.

Shaikh’s framework reveals that we can derive recurrent aggregate patterns from foundations that do not idealize capitalism as a perfectly harmonious society populated by hyperrational individuals. This isn’t just a case of academic hair-splitting: it poses a direct challenge to the myths that justify wage suppression, deregulation, and the gutting of public services. If capitalism’s crises are systemic, not accidental, then reformist tweaks (like higher interest rates or “competition policy”) are doomed to fail. 

In fact, growth and sudden crises, accumulation and exploitation, order and disorder coexist as two sides of the same coin, bound together by the antagonistic social relations that define capitalism. Real competition is the dynamic, conflictual process establishing and regulating the coherence of microeconomic structures and macro-dynamics, and recurrent crises are the expression of the underlying contradictions.

The book contains five chapters on competition (theory, debates, prices, finance, and international markets), and every one of its seventeen chapters engages in a (highly) critical survey of the existing schools of thought. What makes it remarkable is the balancing act in terms of theoretical consistency, with each chapter revealing new fundamental structures, while at the same time locating them within the broader foundational framework.

It could even be argued that shortly before the book’s publication date, Shaikh shifted gears once again, opening up a fourth phase. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the theory of real competition could be applied to a wider range of questions. Shaikh published many papers on economic inequality, labor markets and unemployment, trade imbalances and development, and the theory of exchange rates. His work on the turbulence of real competition generating stable aggregate patterns found expression in econo-physics models, while his investigation of capitalism’s structural features prompted new work on the underlying statistical properties of large matrices.

After Capitalism

This fourth phase is just as consistent (or just as variegated) as the ones that came before. After laying out the fundamentals for the whole economy in Capitalism, Shaikh has applied his work more broadly to pressing issues of the time, while at the same time engaging with the existing literature on these issues.

As before, his striving for a consistent analysis through an integrated framework moved in parallel with the political discussions of these years. Politically, struggles against austerity around the globe coincided with Shaikh’s essay on the 2008 crash for the Socialist Register, “The First Great Depression of the 21st Century.” Resistance to labor market deregulation was the backdrop to his work on the social structure of wages, and protests against the 1 percent illuminated his discussion of inequality as a class-based phenomenon.

While the scope, profundity, and consistence of his work were widely lauded, Shaikh received some friendly criticism for not explicitly addressing some other topics. For example, in a 2020 panel, Prabhat Patnaik complained about the lack of a real competition theory of imperialism. Students at the New School hoped for an analysis of the ecological crisis as well as the development of crypto and digital currencies, the AI bubble, or the increasing tensions in global trade.

It would certainly be unfair to expect a single person to address all these topics. At the same time, it comes as no surprise that many political economists have built on Shaikh’s writings to address seemingly distinct questions. Shaikh’s rigorous theoretical framework, coupled with extensive empirical research, has empowered scholars and activists alike to study their areas of interest without succumbing to eclecticism or the impulse to construct new stages of capitalism for each emerging phenomenon, such as growing financial markets or the digital economy.

Indeed, working on the basis of Shaikh’s analytical tools, cohorts of political economists have advanced major lines of research on topics such as wage inequality and labor market discrimination, industrial organization, growth and the digital economy, the welfare state, and privatizations, not to mention development and imperialism. Our own recent book, Marx’s Theory of Value at the Frontiers, was produced in that context, building on Shaikh’s concepts of real competition and production prices to investigate competition, imperialism, and ecological breakdown with a large and novel dataset.

A Unique Contribution

This evaluation of Shaikh’s work has drawn upon approximately eighty academic papers and book chapters while omitting many others. His biography has been explored in the course of many  interviews, while his ideas have been discussed and criticized in special issues — a whole body of secondary literature that interesting in its own right.

Looking at the bigger picture, however, one can see that Shaikh’s project revolves around clear principles: the search for capitalism’s fundamental structures, an appreciation of empirical methods within an unapologetically theoretical approach, the identification of profits as the fuel for capital accumulation, and real competition as its structure. These principles serve all political economists well, and Shaikh’s insights about how capitalism really works can be very useful for those who want to overcome it.Email

Güney Işıkara

Güney Işıkarais is an associate professor of liberal studies at New York University and the author, with Patrick Mokre, of Marx’s Theory of Value at the Frontiers: Classical Political Economics, Imperialism and Ecological Breakdown.