‘The President of the United States Is Mentally Unwell’: Deranged Trump Posts AI Slop of Iran Bombing
The chief executive of Iran’s government-run oil company dismissed the US president’s social media posts “laughable.”
US President Donald Trump posted an AI-generated video depicting American forces attacking Kharg Island on August 30, 2026.
(Photo: Donald Trump/Screengrab via Truth Social)
Jake Johnson
Aug 31, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
US President Donald Trump published a string of unhinged posts to his social media platform overnight and into Monday morning, including an artificial intelligence-generated video attempting to depict American forces bombing Kharg Island—Iran’s primary oil export terminal.
The post, which drew mockery from Iranian officials and alarm from observers concerned about Trump’s increasingly erratic behavior, came after US forces attacked Larak Island, which is located hundreds of miles east of Kharg in the Strait of Hormuz.
“Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!” Trump wrote in the caption of his post. It is unclear whether Trump, who frequently shares inane AI-generated videos with his 13 million Truth Social followers, confused Larak Island with Kharg Island, which the president has repeatedly threatened to invade.
An unnamed US official confirmed to Reuters in the wake of Trump’s post that American forces did not target Kharg Island during their Sunday attacks.
Hamid Bovard, the chief executive of Iran’s government-run oil company, called Trump’s posts “laughable” and described conditions on Kharg Island as “calm and appropriate.”
Iran retaliated for the US strike on Larak with a drone attack on two American military installations in Jordan and condemned the Trump administration’s ongoing aggression as an “obvious violation” of the United Nations Charter.
“It is obvious that full responsibility for the consequences of America’s new aggressive actions, as well as the continuation of the maritime blockade and economic war against Iran, rests with the US regime and all parties that in any way cooperate or participate in preparing and implementing the US’ illegal and unlawful actions,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The military exchange between the US and Iran was the first in weeks amid stalled efforts to achieve a lasting solution to the historically unpopular war that Trump and his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, launched in late February, sparking a global energy crisis that has jacked up gas prices in the US and prompted fears of a global food emergency.
In a separate Truth Social post on Monday morning, Trump declared that Iran is “officially a Failed Nation,” adding in all-caps, “IT IS DEAD!”
“They have no Navy, they have no Air Force, they have no currency, they are not paying their soldiers or police, Inflation is at 300%, and their leadership is in total disarray and incapable of properly representing the country” Trump wrote.
“They must be tried for war crimes against humanity!” added the US president, who has been credibly accused of committing war crimes in Iran and elsewhere.
Trump’s attempt to convey overwhelming and unflagging US military superiority conflicts with internal assessments by top American officials, who reportedly warned Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this month that “prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the US homeland.” US intelligence assessments have also found that, despite Trump’s claims, Iran’s government is still intact after six months of American bombing.
“The president of the United States is mentally unwell and has been for quite some time,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who has supported congressional efforts to end Trump’s illegal war, wrote in a social media post on Monday. “He fantasized blowing up Iran’s Kharg Island. Except it didn’t happen.”
“And why would Trump need to blow it up if, as Trump claims, the US has total control of the Strait,” Lieu asked.
‘This Is Ethnic Cleansing’: Retired Israeli Generals Decry Settler Terrorism Against West Bank Palestinians
“Once a society behaves this way, that society is doomed.”
Israeli soldiers stand outside the homes of Palestinian families living in the Ras al-Ayn area of Qusra, south of Nablus in the West Bank, Palestine, on August 14, 2026.
(Photo by Issam Rimawi/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Brad Reed
Aug 31, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
Several retired Israel Defense Forces generals are publicly denouncing their own government for permitting settlers living in the illegally occupied West Bank to wage a campaign of violence against the Palestinian population.
As The New York Times reported on Monday, the retired generals have been touring the West Bank in recent days to witness first-hand the damage that has been done to Palestinians’ livelihoods by the Israeli settlers, whose violent actions have grown so outrageous that even US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee described them as “terrorists.”
Ephraim Sneh, retired brigadier general and former minister of health, did not mince words in describing the settlers’ campaign of attacking Palestinian villages.
“This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply,” said Sneh.
Asaf Agmon, a retired Air Force general, likened the attacks on Palestinians to the kinds of pogroms once suffered by Jews living in Europe.
Agmon also said that the Israeli government’s tacit support of these attacks bodes ill for the future of Israel.
“Once a society behaves this way,” said Agmon, “that society is doomed.”
The tours of the West Bank are being organized by Yaakov Or, a retired Israeli general who spent much of his career working inside the occupied territory.
According to the Times, Or begins every tour with a speech where he emphasizes the importance of speaking out against what he says are indefensible atrocities.
“When I take you to see what is happening in the West Bank, you will have two choices,” Or said during the start of a recent tour. “You can stay silent, and be complicit, or you can speak out, and tell everyone you know about what is happening.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the weekend once again downplayed the significance of settler attacks on Palestinians, describing them as rogue actions taken by troubled individuals.
“We are talking about a very small handful of people,” Netanyahu said, “usually young people who come with all kinds of distress and problems, often from home, and I am determined to stop this.”
The Israeli prime minister also said that attacking Palestinian villages “harms the settlement movement” and “gives us a bad name around the world.”
Palestinian Christian theologian Munther Isaac pointed out that the Israeli government itself has been actively working to push Palestinians out of their homes in the West Bank, pointing to recent Israeli demolitions of homes in the town of Birzeit.
“This is what ethnic cleansing looks like in Palestine,” wrote Isaac.
Human rights organizations for months have been sounding the alarm about the situation in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers have routinely attacked Palestinians at their own homes.
An analysis published by the Carter Center last month found that “settler attacks are now the leading cause of Palestinian injuries in the West Bank,” as “more than 3,200 Palestinians have been displaced by settler attacks and home demolitions this year—double the daily rate of the previous three years.”
GOP’s Anti-Socialism Resolution Reveals the Party’s Ultra-Reactionary Nature
In essence, the resolution by Republicans denounces all policies seeking improvements in collective welfare.
C.J. Polychroniou
Sep 02, 2026Common Dreams/TRUTHOUT
On Tuesday, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution sponsored by Republican Study Committee Member Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) to condemn socialism “in all its forms.” Eight Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of this red scare tactic ahead of the November midterm elections, which accentuates the Democrat’s divide.
The ideological divide between the establishment and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is profound, and the resolution condemning socialism is indeed part of a concerted strategy on the part of the GOP to wreak further havoc on the Democratic Party.
It is also important to take note of the fact that the resolution does not merely condemn socialism but opposes the implementation of all socialist policies in the United States. In essence, it denounces all policies seeking improvements in collective welfare.
Policies seeking improvements in collective welfare cover a wide range of objectives, like addressing massive economic inequalities, offering all people access to high-quality healthcare services, providing free public services, supporting individuals who experience various forms of income loss, protecting the environment, and so on. These policies may or may not be part of a strictly socialist agenda, but they are designed to promote economic justice and to enhance social cohesion and social welfare.
The claim that socialism leads inevitably to totalitarianism and tyranny is pure propaganda to scare the ignorant.
Indeed, many European countries have been actively pursuing policies seeking to bring about improvements in collective welfare at least since the end of World War II. The scope of some of these policies has shrunk considerably in the age of predatory capitalism, which is what the GOP anti-socialism resolution stands for, but no political party of any ideological stripe in the rest of the western world espouses the myth of social Darwinism to attack policies seeking to improve collective welfare. In fact, Europe’s far-right parties and movements advocate a strong welfare state and promise more government spending on native-born citizens (while excluding immigrants), especially in light of the ongoing erosion of social programs under neoliberalism.
There are many different types of socialism. For instance, European socialism (otherwise known as social democracy) has nothing to do with communism as the world experienced with the founding of the Soviet Union and bears no resemblance whatsoever to certain authoritarian and self-proclaimed socialist regimes that flourished during the Cold War in certain parts of the non-western world (Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, among others). The claim that socialism leads inevitably to totalitarianism and tyranny is pure propaganda to scare the ignorant. Socialist parties have ruled for long periods of time in most northern European countries, with those societies ranking globally at the top of major indexes for economic stability and personal freedoms while experiencing low rates of crime.
The Republican Party is by far the most reactionary party in the western world.
If anything, the argument has been that European socialist parties haven’t been socialistic enough. They pursued policies that improved without a doubt the condition of working-class people by striking a greater balance between capital and labor but did not go far enough with the mission of egalitarianism. DSA itself has been critical of the actual accomplishments of European socialism as it envisions a socioeconomic order based on democratic planning and participation whose sole purpose would be “to meet human needs, rather than to make profits for a few.”
Naturally, the GOP’s anti-socialism resolution paid no attention to such ideological and empirical nuances. It denounced socialism “in all its forms” and, by doing so, signaled its full support for an economic system based on predatory capitalism and a social order that advocates the notion that only the fittest members of society deserve to survive.
Policies geared toward universal healthcare, housing decommodification, strong worker rights and protections, strict financial regulation, environmental protection, and social justice? That’s the road to totalitarianism and tyranny, according to GOP’s anti-socialism resolution.
But there should be nothing surprising about this. The Republican Party is by far the most reactionary party in the western world. Yet, it continues to assert with confidence--and measurable success, no doubt--that its political and ideological positions represent the values and principles of the American people.
It is Trump’s fascism and the system of predatory capitalism that need to be denounced, not socialism.
However, the tide is turning. Americans are not only fed up with rising costs but with the way “democracy” works in their country, as a Pew Research Center poll revealed earlier in the summer. Support for capitalism has rapidly declined, especially among young people. Less than 10 percent of people younger than 30 have a “very positive” view of capitalism, according to a recent CBS/YouGov poll.
The idea propounded by the likes of Milton Friedman and implemented by Ronald Reagan and virtually every other US administration since have created one of the most unequal societies in the world while plutocrats are in control of the political system. US democracy is essentially a sham. But Trump and company have gone even further by advancing a 21st century version of fascism. It is Trump’s fascism and the system of predatory capitalism that need to be denounced, not socialism. In one of the most unequal and brutally unjust societies in the world, policies geared toward the improvement of the collective welfare represent the only realistic and humane alternative. And it appears that more and more Americans are beginning to realize that socialism is the only way out. So much so, one might add, that if Vladimir Mayakovsky were alive today and living in the United States, he might conceivably have said “Socialism is the youth of the world.”
‘So Afraid of Working-Class People’: Delia Ramirez Rips Supporters of ‘Stupid’ Anti-Socialism Resolution
“They’re afraid to get honest about who they really work for here. Spoiler alert: It’s not working people.”
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) attends the dedication ceremony for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center in John Lewis Plaza on June 18, 2026 in Chicago, Illinois.
(Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)
Brad Reed
Sep 02, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
Rep. Delia Ramirez on Tuesday hit back at colleagues in the US House of Representatives who voted for a resolution condemning socialism “in all its forms.”
During a speech on the House floor, Ramirez (D-Ill.) slammed the anti-socialism resolution, which passed with the support of eight Democrats joining all Republicans, as a meaningless distraction.
“Today my colleagues thought it was a good use of people’s time... to come after a working people’s platform and the people working to make that platform a reality,” Ramirez said. “You know why? Because they’re afraid to get honest about who they really work for here. Spoiler alert: It’s not working people.”
The Illinois Democrat rattled off a list of Republican policies that benefit big corporations and the wealthy at the expense of working people, including cuts to Medicaid and support for President Donald Trump’s illegal war with Iran.
Ramirez then accused Republicans of pushing the resolution “because you’re so afraid of working-class people coming into the next Congress” after the 2026 midterm elections.
“So let me be clear,” she concluded. “Not only do I call on my colleagues to vote against this stupid resolution... but also to put this much energy into creating a world, a system that actually works for working people.”
Ramirez was far from the only Democrat to rip the anti-socialism resolution.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) likewise condemned the “stupid resolution,” which he said “ignores Americans who are more concerned about the cost of living than obsessing about socialism.”
Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) suggested that a better use of Congress’ time would be to “condemn the 34-count felon in the White House, not a bunch of people who just want universal healthcare.”
Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic nominee for the US House seat in New York’s 13th congressional district, slammed the eight Democrats who voted with Republicans to pass the resolution.
“Democrats love talking about a ‘big tent,’ but then they vote in line with Republicans hell-bent on destroying our democracy,” she wrote. “This resolution was aimed squarely at democratic socialists like me.”
Can DSA’s Brand of Socialism Attract the Broader Working Class?
There are a few key reasons why many working class people likely won’t embrace the vision put forth by the Democratic Socialists of America.
Members of the Democratic Socialists of America gather in New York City.
(Photo: Spencer Platt via Getty Images)Common Dreams
Members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are proud to wear their socialism on their sleeves (and on their hats.) It lets everyone know they are serious about changing capitalism into something far more humane, transforming the system into one in which working people rather than plutocrats run the economy.
Their embrace of socialism also gives its members a sense of community. It signals a commonality in opposition to the status quo, on behalf of all working people. It’s a righteous identity that signals us against them, right against wrong, justice against injustice—a moral, almost religious bonding.
However, it also pushes people away. It creates a demarcation line between in and out. It’s not just the capitalists who are excluded, but anyone who doesn’t buy into DSA’s vision of socialism.
But why wouldn’t all working people readily embrace DSA’s socialist vision?
Let’s look at how the DSA defines its socialism:Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit.
We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system in which ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.
The people should collectively own key economic drivers, such as energy production and transportation, that are used by all.
We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear.
We want reforms, such as Medicare for All, community-centered public safety, and the Green New Deal, that the current establishment considers radical but we think are essential for a fairer system.
So far, that sounds within the realm of progressive economic populism. Even doable, I hope, but then they go further:Work as much as you are able and no more than needed. Control your own labor and see it going to good use. Work is not just a job to pay the bills.
You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, no rent, because comfortable housing is a human right.
Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.
A socialist’s day off could be like any good day now. But you should be free to spend your time how you like without worrying about cost or dreading going back to work.
And college, as well as groceries, should be free.
When DSA candidates take to the field, they focus almost entirely on populist economic demands—housing and food affordability, fair taxes on billionaires, and Medicare for All. These are socialist in the sense that Social Security, libraries, fire departments, and our current Medicare are socialist, and yet they are also firmly embedded in our capitalist system.
I have yet to encounter a DSA candidate who discusses truly socialist reforms, like the elimination of large private enterprises and workers’ control of the corporations that employ them.
We have the word “socialism” and significant portions of the DSA platform that do not have significant working-class support, yet DSA doesn’t seem bothered by being out of touch with large segments of the working class they claim to be fighting for.
Then why does DSA use the word “socialist” if it does not involve their day-to-day political debates? And why use it when it is sure to turn off many of the very working people DSA claims to represent?
The Education Class Divide
There is a significant disparity among educational groups when it comes to having positive or negative views toward socialism.
Gallup’s 2025 polling found that:31 percent of people with some college, but no four-year degree, viewed socialism positively, compared with 66 percent who viewed it negatively.
Among people with a high-school education or less, the split was 38 percent positive to 57 percent negative.
College graduates were the most favorable educational group, with 47 percent viewing socialism positively, and 51 percent negatively.
Among independents, only 38 percent viewed socialism positively, compared with 57 percent who viewed it negatively.
This doesn’t mean working people oppose the policies associated with democratic socialism, like taxing billionaires. But it does mean that DSA’s use of the word “socialism” itself is likely to trigger a negative response and undermine its effectiveness among working-class voters, especially in red America.
Why use the word “socialism” when it’s going to turn off the very voters you hope to attract?
Because it doesn’t turn off DSA college-educated members. The reality is that despite their “Workers Deserve More” platform, DSA is a political organization by and for college graduates, especially disenchanted Democrats in blue areas. That demographic seems to have no problem with the idea of socialism. In fact, 66 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion of socialism, with just 32 percent feeling negatively.
Which fits with several of the policies DSA supports that also are likely to turn off non-college working-class voters.
Immigration
For example, the DSA platform calls for legalizing migration, granting amnesty to all immigrants regardless of status, providing a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and ending visa caps and quotas.
Some elements of this position have considerable popular support. Pew Research found that 64 percent of Americans believe undocumented immigrants should have some way to stay legally in the United States, and 60 percent favor allowing them to apply for citizenship.
But that support generally comes with conditions: 79 percent favor security background checks, and 52 percent favor requiring immigrants to have a job.
The broader DSA position is another matter. The Pew Research Center conducted in August 2024 found that 48 percent of U.S. adults wanted legal immigration kept at its present level; 24 percent wanted it increased and 26 percent wanted it decreased.
There is little evidence that working-class Americans want to eliminate visa caps and quotas altogether. In fact, non-college voters are more likely than college graduates to see large-scale migration as contributing to crime.
The distinction is important: working people can support a path to citizenship for immigrants already here while also wanting secure borders and limits on future immigration. DSA’s position largely erases that distinction.
Abolish the Police?
DSA calls for demilitarizing police departments, disempowering police unions, redirecting police funding to public services, and ultimately abolishing the police and prison system.
Here again, polling reveals a sharp divide between progressive reforms and the more sweeping DSA position. A 2020 Gallup poll taken after the George Floyd murder found that 58 percent said policing needed major changes and vast majorities supported changing police management practices so that officer abuses are punished. However, there was little to no support for abolishing police departments.
The lesson here isn’t that working people oppose police reform. Quite the contrary: there is overwhelming support for holding abusive officers accountable, improving police-community relations, and expanding community-based alternatives.
But there is a huge difference between reforming policing and abolishing it. DSA’s position goes far beyond what polling shows most working people are prepared to support.
Palestine
It’s not that working people necessarily disagree with DSA’s concern for Palestinian lives or even with major elements of its policy. Polling shows substantial support across the electorate for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, Palestinian self-determination, and conditioning or reducing U.S. military aid to Israel.
The problem is that DSA bundles those broadly popular positions with a much more sweeping ideological program—open-ended opposition to Israel as a state, the right of return to Israel for Palestinians and their decedents who lived within its border but fled during various wars, unrestricted immigration, and prosecution of U.S. and Israeli leaders for genocide—that has not been adequately tested among working-class voters.
While justice for Palestine is a major issue for DSA members, it’s not at all clear that it is a major issue for working people without college degrees. We have no indication from polling that it ranks anywhere near as important as economic issues, nor that it influences the votes of non-college graduates. Also, it seems to rank about the same as the Russia-Ukraine war, which is not even mentioned in the DSA platform. The distinction? Palestine, not Ukraine, is a very big issue among college-educated young people and hence essential to the DSA platform.
Why would an organization that purports to be fighting on behalf of the working class develop a platform with many elements that a majority of working people do not support?
Again, the answer is that those positions do have strong support among college graduates, the real base of DSA. And those college graduates hope that most working people will support those positions, if not now, eventually.
So, we have the word “socialism” and significant portions of the DSA platform that do not have significant working-class support, yet DSA doesn’t seem bothered by being out of touch with large segments of the working class they claim to be fighting for.
That’s socialist identity politics. It lets the world know that DSA members, mostly college educated, have a vision to eliminate capitalism and the many problems it poses. While DSA would like to have broad working-class support, it is not about to give up its socialist vision and its more radical policies to get it.
And it’s doubtful to change because DSA is on a roll as it gains more and more members and support among disenchanted college graduates who they see as the new working class, or at least a large part of it. Afterall, DSA already is the largest, most active political organization in the country.
So, DSA and its members do not feel any pressure to change their political identity. They wear it proudly as the oligarchy limits opportunities for recent college graduates and drives them towards DSA.
That’s why it is highly unlikely that DSA will become a political organization of workers without college degrees. And that’s exactly why those unrepresented workers need a party of their own that reflects what they believe in and what they want from our economy and political system. (Please see my latest book for a fuller account.)
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Les Leopold
Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute and author of the new book, “The Billionaires Have Two Parties, We Need a Party of Our Own” (2026). His previous books include: “Wall Street’s War on Workers: How Mass Layoffs and Greed Are Destroying the Working Class and What to Do About It" (2024); "Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice" (2015); and “The Man Who Hated Work and Loved Labor: The Life and Times of Tony Mazzocchi” (2007). Read more of his work on his substack here.
Full Bio >
Rare Earth Minerals Don’t Have to Feed the War Machine
A nation can spend billions building supply chains designed to manufacture the next generation of weapons, or it can use the same industrial capacity to build the infrastructure required for the next generation of human life. The minerals are the same.
Manzanas wind turbines stand out in the desert landscape near the Tehachapi Mountains in Rosamond, California.
(Photo by Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)Common Dreams
On August 24, the Department of War announced a $750 million investment to secure rare-earth elements produced by Serra Verde at its Pela Ema project in Brazil. Combined with a $300 million purchase commitment from the Defense Logistics Agency and $500 million from a major bank, the arrangement represents a $1.55 billion investment structure aimed at reducing US dependence on Chinese-controlled supply chains.
There is a legitimate problem here.
There is also a troubling choice about how we intend to solve it.
Rare-earth elements such as neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium are essential components of modern life. They are used in permanent magnets found in electric vehicles, wind turbines, electronics, industrial equipment, and other technologies. They are also used in fighter jets, guided missiles, nuclear submarines, drones, and other weapons systems.
A mineral dug from the ground does not know whether it will eventually become part of an offshore wind turbine or the guidance system of a missile. That decision is political.
China currently dominates this supply chain. According to the International Energy Agency, China accounted for about 60% of global mining of magnet rare earths in 2024, 91% of their refining, and 94% of sintered permanent-magnet production. That level of concentration creates a genuine economic vulnerability, particularly after Chinese export restrictions demonstrated how quickly access to these materials can become a geopolitical bargaining chip.
Diversification makes sense.
But listen carefully to the language the US government is using to describe it.
Assistant Secretary of War for Industrial Base Policy Mike Cadenazzi called resilient supply chains a “fundamental warfighting requirement.” The department says the agreement will guarantee materials necessary to manufacture “next-generation weapons systems.” Its announcement specifically highlights nuclear submarines, fighter jets, guided missiles, combat vessels, and drones.
That framing deserves scrutiny.
The United States is not simply securing minerals. It is incorporating another piece of the global economy into an increasingly militarized conception of national security.
A Mineral Can Power a Wind Turbine or a Missile
There is nothing inherently military about neodymium.
A mineral dug from the ground does not know whether it will eventually become part of an offshore wind turbine or the guidance system of a missile.
That decision is political.
And that is precisely why this $1.55 billion initiative should provoke a broader conversation about the kind of economy the United States is building.
If Washington treats critical minerals primarily as inputs for weapons, we should not be surprised when the industries surrounding them increasingly organize themselves around weapons production.
Serra Verde is an important source of these materials. Its Pela Ema operation began commercial production in 2024 and is the first large-scale producer outside Asia of all four critical magnetic rare-earth elements: neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium. The company expects production to reach roughly 6,400 metric tons of rare-earth oxides annually by the end of 2027.
That makes Brazil potentially important to reducing the world’s dangerous dependence on a single supplier.
But reducing dependence on China should not automatically mean subordinating a new international supply chain to the needs of the Pentagon.
Rare-earth resilience could instead be treated as civilian industrial policy: an effort to ensure reliable supplies for renewable energy, public transportation, resilient electrical grids, medical technologies, communications infrastructure, and other components of human security.
The difference is more than rhetorical.
Government priorities influence markets. Purchase guarantees influence production. Subsidies determine which industries expand. Billions of public dollars can create an ecosystem in which manufacturers orient themselves toward military customers because those customers offer enormous, guaranteed demand.
If Washington treats critical minerals primarily as inputs for weapons, we should not be surprised when the industries surrounding them increasingly organize themselves around weapons production.
Security Is Bigger Than Military Power
The Department of War’s announcement actually exposes the contradiction.
The same release that celebrates rare earths as essential to fighter aircraft and nuclear submarines acknowledges that they are vital to “energy infrastructure, transportation, aerospace, and electronics.”
Exactly.
Those civilian applications should not be an afterthought.
The United States could reproduce the very system it says it wants to escape: concentrated supply chains organized around geopolitical blocs, each treating access to minerals as leverage against the other.
Climate change threatens lives. An unreliable electrical grid threatens lives. Fragile transportation and communications systems threaten economic stability. Supply-chain disruptions can close factories and eliminate jobs.
Those are security issues too.
Yet American policymakers repeatedly define security through the narrowest possible lens: military capability first, virtually everything else second.
A peace economy asks a different question.
Instead of asking only, “What materials do we need to maintain our technological advantage in warfare?” we should ask: “What materials do people need to live safely, sustainably and prosperously—and how can we obtain them without creating new forms of exploitation, environmental destruction, or international conflict?”
That would still require diversifying the rare-earth supply chain.
It would still require investment.
It would still require cooperation with countries such as Brazil.
But the purpose would be different.
Don’t Replace One Dependency With Another
There is another danger in framing critical minerals as part of strategic competition with China.
The United States could reproduce the very system it says it wants to escape: concentrated supply chains organized around geopolitical blocs, each treating access to minerals as leverage against the other.
Minerals essential to decarbonization could become another source of great-power confrontation.
The result would not necessarily be resilience. It could be a global scramble for resources.
Countries possessing lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare-earth deposits would increasingly become arenas for competition among powerful states. Supply agreements would become security agreements. Economic relationships would become tests of allegiance.
Minerals essential to decarbonization could become another source of great-power confrontation.
That is not a theoretical concern when officials explicitly describe access to raw materials as a “warfighting requirement.”
The alternative is not continued dependence on China. Diversification is necessary. The IEA itself has repeatedly warned that extreme concentration in rare-earth refining and magnet production represents a significant economic risk.
But diversification should mean creating many reliable suppliers and processing centers—not dividing the mineral economy into rival military camps.
Build a Peace Supply Chain
A different critical-minerals strategy is possible.
The United States could invest aggressively in recycling and recovery of rare-earth materials. It could develop domestic processing capacity while applying strong labor and environmental standards. It could enter long-term partnerships with Brazil and other producing countries that emphasize shared economic development rather than simply extracting resources for American strategic advantage.
And the government could prioritize civilian demand—renewable power, electric transportation, grid modernization, and other public infrastructure—alongside legitimate defense requirements.
It could guarantee that communities near mines and processing facilities benefit economically and retain meaningful influence over development decisions.
And the government could prioritize civilian demand—renewable power, electric transportation, grid modernization, and other public infrastructure—alongside legitimate defense requirements rather than allowing military procurement to dictate the direction of an entire emerging industry.
Serra Verde itself demonstrates why the choice matters. The company’s rare earths can supply permanent magnets for electric vehicles and wind turbines just as surely as they can supply defense and aerospace manufacturers.
The question is not whether America should secure access to critical minerals.
It should.
The question is what we intend to do with the security that access provides.
A nation can spend billions building supply chains designed to manufacture the next generation of weapons.
Or it can use the same industrial capacity to build the infrastructure required for the next generation of human life.
The minerals are the same.
The economy we build around them is a choice.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Katerina Canyon
Katerina Canyon is the executive director of the Peace Economy Project, a St. Louis-based nonprofit advancing demilitarization and community-centered investment. She is also an MFA candidate whose work explores the social costs of militarization and the civic imagination.
Full Bio >
Health Aid Cuts in Secret Trump Deals Will Inflict ‘Preventable’ Death, Disease on Global South: Report
“It will be patients who will pay the ultimate price,” said one global health advocate.
A nurse from Doctors Without Borders (MSF) examines a little girl in the village of Befeno, Madagascar
(Photo by RIJASOLO/AFP)
Julia Conley
Aug 31, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
The US Congress has pushed back against President Donald Trump’s efforts to slash foreign aid, which has long been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike—but a new report on more than a dozen Memoranda of Understanding that the White House has reached with countries that have long relied heavily on healthcare assistance shows that the administration is underspending “congressionally appropriated global health funds by potentially billions of dollars,” as it pushes its “America First Global Health Strategy.”
That’s according to Public Citizen, which on Sunday joined Partners In Health in releasing an analysis of documents that the two nonprofits obtained after suing the Trump administration and filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The groups reviewed the MOUs that have been signed for 18 out of 34 countries whose agreements have been negotiated by the US State Department, including Rwanda, Liberia, Burundi, and Madagascar.
Although Congress has voted to keep foreign aid levels relatively constant—rejecting a budget that called to slash global health spending by $6.2 billion before approving one that proposed a $615 million decrease in spending—the report finds that the MOUs cut foreign health aid by about $2 billion by 2030, compared to 2024 levels.
“These documents suggest that the Trump administration is on course to underspend on global health by billions of dollars compared to what Congress has ordered, risking lives and allowing diseases to spread,” said Peter Maybarduk, director of the Access to Medicines program at Public Citizen. “The administration must answer how and when it intends to invest the missing billions for health.”
Overall, funding for programs that aim to prevent the spread of diseases including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and Ebola—which is currently spreading in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s fastest-spreading outbreak on record—is set to be reduced by 59% from historical spending, according to the MOUs viewed by Public Citizen and Partners in Health.
Some countries would see their health assistance from the US plummet even more, with Rwanda’s MOU stipulating a 97% reduction in US health aid. Liberia is set to receive 84% less funding for health initiatives by 2030, and Burundi is set to lose 78% of its aid.
“Partners In Health provides direct care in Rwanda, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, along with seven other countries, and expects under-spending of these funds to impact patients’ access to care,” said Public Citizen.
The MOUs also demand that the countries meet strict co-financing requirements to make up for their lost funding, and governments in poor countries across Africa could face penalties “which could worsen funding cuts” if they miss the co-financing targets.
“The planned decreases in US funding are larger for several countries than the funding increases from partner governments,” reads the report. “For more than half of countries (11 out of 18), co-financing commitments fall short of the US government’s cuts over five years compared to baseline US government funding.”
Countries are likely to struggle to meet the co-financing requirements in the MOUs, warned Public Citizen and Partners In Health.
Malawi would be required to secure new healthcare funding equal to 56% of the country’s total health expenditure, the report found. With Uganda also facing co-financing requirements from international health organizations including the Global Fund and Gavi, the East African country would be required to mobilize funds equal to 44% of its total health budget.
“These funding cuts will cause death and disease that is preventable,” said Vincent Lin, associate director of health policy and advocacy for Partners In Health. “The State Department is setting up other countries for failure with the co-financing requirements outlined in these agreements, but it will be patients who will pay the ultimate price.”
Maybarduk told The Washington Post that Sierra Leone will be required under its MOU to fill a 71% health funding gap by 2030.
“It’s going to be very difficult, and if a country like that falls behind, and then is punished for that, then of course the health problems compound,” said Maybarduk.
The State Department denied to the Post that the Trump administration will not spend all the foreign health assistance funds appropriated by Congress; it suggested that more of the money than usual may go to religious organizations as well as an “innovation fund” to support US technology that aims to fight disease.
Last week, Public Citizen sued the Trump administration under FOIA to obtain the rest of the MOUs that remain hidden from the public.
The White House, said the group, “has kept the public in the dark about the full details of its plans for the future of US support for global health.”
“The State Department has negotiated these bilateral agreements,” the group said, “on rushed timelines with limited participation from civil society and affected communities.”
On the Heuristics of Fear: The Ecological Catastrophe Scenario
If the right decisions are not made in the coming years and drastic systemic changes are not implemented, the destruction of planetary habitats can no longer be stopped.
Volunteers and firefighters work to extinguish a forest fire burning in the mountains of the rural area of Epuyen, in the Patagonian region of Chubut province, Argentina, on February 1, 2026.
(Photo by Gonzalo Keogan / AFP via Getty Images)Common Dreams
The escalation of the current crisis-ridden conditions in the areas of climate change, the economy, international security, and the development of democracy—leading to dystopian future scenarios—need not occur in this form. However, there is a real possibility that they could occur if humanity fails to bring about a paradigm shift, makes the wrong decisions, and continues its destructive behavior toward the planet.
Learning from the ‘Anticipated Danger’
The construction of negative scenarios in the sense of an anticipated possibility of dystopian development can certainly serve a constructive purpose.
In his book The Imperative of Responsibility, the philosopher Hans Jonas developed what he called a “heuristics of fear,” by which he meant that potential undesirable developments should be recognized in all their severity and menace and described in drastic terms commensurate with their presumed magnitude. According to Jonas (1979/2015, 7), this enables a society to look the potential risks squarely in the eye and thereby resolve to acknowledge its own responsibility for the planet and the fate of future generations:
What can serve as a compass? The anticipated danger itself! In its flash of lightning from the future, in the foreshadowing of its planetary scope and its human depth, the ethical principles from which the new duties of new power can be derived first become apparent.
Of course, this negative vision must be compatible with the developments already analyzed; it must not, therefore, be plucked out of thin air, even if not all the information needed for an assessment is yet available. Heuristics is a creative thought process based on estimates, assumptions, and calculations.
Immersing oneself in a likely future situation and sensing the potential of a future catastrophe can provide insights for preventive action. It is possible that the fear of a catastrophic planetary scenario could lead to a systemic shift in course and to responsible decisions.
The Inadequacy of the Paris Climate Agreements
From the spectrum of multiple crises—which are certainly interconnected—this article will focus on the disrupted relationship between humanity and nature and heuristically develop it into a negative scenario.
David Spratt and Ian Dunlop (2019, 6) predict that even if the 2015 Paris Climate Agreements were fully implemented, stable climate conditions would still not be expected. In particular, climatic feedback effects would render the Earth largely uninhabitable for human civilization by the end of the century. Even if the Paris climate targets were met, a warming of 5°C would be expected by the year 2100, with devastating consequences for life on Earth.
It must also be taken into account that not all countries have accepted the Paris Agreements or, in some cases—such as the U.S. under Trump—have since withdrawn from them.
Fires, Storms, Overheating, and Floods
A worst-case scenario for such an increasingly hot biosphere must anticipate a rise in wildfires. Vast areas of the Earth will begin to burn. Fire walls driven by massive gusts of wind will devour everything in their path: trees and bushes, houses, animals, and people. Such firestorms are beyond human control and cannot be fought; they depend on heavy rainfall, and it is unclear whether such rain will fall in the burning regions at all due to climate shifts. The result will be the desolation of entire regions, leading to humanitarian, ecological, and financial problems on a global scale. The fires of 2025 and 2026 are already offering a glimpse of what lies ahead for humanity.
Future average temperatures in the Persian Gulf are projected to reach 50-60°C, meaning that for the average person, human life here will no longer be possible—or will only be possible in artificially cooled spaces. Even in the countries of the Global North, mass mortality is beginning due to overheated living environments. Initially, this will affect older people and those who are already ill, and will then spread to people who would otherwise be considered healthy. Circulatory shock, overheating, and dehydration will then also affect younger people.
It is undisputed that sea levels will rise due to the melting of the poles, the warming of seawater, and the accompanying melting of Arctic ice.
However, a potential average rise of 2.5 meters by 2100 does not represent the extreme level of sea-level rise. During storm surges in particular, the rise in sea level can be several times this value and lead to flooding deep into continental areas. This will also affect the Global North.
Islands, coastal regions, and low-lying inland areas will be flooded, destroying living conditions there and, in turn, triggering migration. Not only will island groups disappear, but large parts of countries such as Bangladesh and India will also be flooded, triggering mass exoduses. In this context, the rise in sea level, combined with the monsoon rains in this region—which are already becoming increasingly devastating—will have a particularly dangerous effect.
The thawing of Arctic and Siberian permafrost, through the associated release of carbon dioxide and methane, will lead to a massive increase in global warming and abruptly intensify all related processes.
In other parts of the world, climate shifts are causing air masses with extremely different temperatures to collide, resulting in devastating storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Houses, cars, animals, and people are swept up into the air and smashed to pieces. Skyscrapers collapse, and the infrastructure—including electricity, water, and gas lines, as well as the internet—is irreparably destroyed. Radioactivity is released from destroyed nuclear power plants; it circulates in the Earth’s atmosphere, falls as rain, and will lead to increased rates of cancer and birth defects in humans and animals.
Catastrophic Impact on Social and Political Development on a Global Scale
Massive migration—in the form of mass exoduses or mass migrations—will be triggered by climate change. Migration to date should be viewed, at best, as the tip of the iceberg in this context, as billions of people will set out as refugees if global warming continues unchecked. It is not difficult to imagine the conflicts—including military confrontations—that will arise from these upheavals in the struggle for ecologically intact regions.
Global warming will lead to massive crop failures and associated famines. The global agricultural food system will collapse. The struggle for food and survival will lead to massive price increases, looting, and military conflicts. The call for a heavy hand, for authoritarian leaders, and for police-state methods will grow louder even in democracies.
Far-right governments will attempt, in the interests of their constituencies, to deny climate change and continue to rely on the exploitation of fossil fuels.
The struggle for drinking water will intensify, on the one hand due to increasing periods of drought and, on the other, due to the growing trend toward profit-driven privatization of water sources. Privatized water sources will be guarded by militarized security forces against raids by groups of thirsty people. In drought-stricken areas, people will die of thirst—especially those who no longer have the financial means to purchase water, a scarce and therefore increasingly expensive commodity.
Spratt and Dunlop (2019, 9) describe the societal consequences of climate change even at the 3°C level. States and societies will be overwhelmed and will face extreme collective stress:
The flooding of coastal communities around the world—particularly in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China—has the potential to call regional and even national identities into question. Armed conflicts between nations over resources such as the Nile and its tributaries are likely, and a nuclear war is possible. The societal consequences range from heightened religious zeal to utter chaos. In this scenario, climate change triggers a lasting change in humanity’s relationship with nature.
Furthermore, if a UN in need of strengthening fails to dissuade unscrupulous governments from the generationally selfish destruction of the rainforest for the purposes of livestock ranching, soybean cultivation, the search for mineral resources, or land speculation, then this, too, will not only destroy the Earth’s lungs but also bring about a drastic climate shift.
Wars raging globally and emissions from explosions and fires exacerbate climate change while simultaneously preventing the affected regions from taking effective measures against this climatic dystopia. The military in active service is becoming the largest institutional global destroyer of the climate.
These are just a few of the developments addressed so far. Threats such as temperature changes and the resulting diversion of the Gulf Stream, the narrowing of the temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator—which leads to a weakening of the jet stream—the release of methane trapped in the seabed, insect die-offs due to the increased use of pesticides in agriculture, the destruction of clean drinking water due to overfertilization of fields, as well as plastic pollution in the oceans and the demise of all life in increasingly larger marine regions are likely to represent additional ecological tipping points that will further exacerbate the massive problems already mentioned.
When Will the “Point of No Return” Be Reached?
The question is when the global situation will reach a point from which there will be no return to ecological balance for many generations to come.
The progression of overpopulation, coupled with unchecked economic growth and rampant consumerism, leads to increased ecological exploitation of the Earth system under the conditions of an increasingly overcrowded planet.
However, it is to be expected that population pressure is not primarily responsible for environmental destruction, but rather, in particular, the irresponsible consumption of resources by the wealthier segment of the world’s population (Roettig 2021).
The “point of no return” is likely to be crossed soon. Once the biosphere’s planetary responses develop an uncontrollable momentum of their own that turns against human civilization and the conditions necessary for all life on Earth, it will be too late—both for prevention and for mitigation.
Over the past 20 years, the planet’s resilience has reached its breaking point; in some areas, it has demonstrably been exceeded.
The Doomsday Clock makes this clear. According to the Doomsday Clock—founded and calculated in 1947 by Albert Einstein, among others—we are already 85 seconds away from the destruction of the planet’s foundations as of February 2026. In 1991, we were still 17 minutes away from destruction.
Eco-Imperialist and Systemic Causes
Violent competition over the use of resources is intensifying as more people’s basic needs—and, in particular, their luxury needs—must be met. Not only the struggle for clean drinking water and food, but also the struggle for lithium, cobalt, uranium, etc., is leading to violent conflicts between different groups of people and regions. German political scientist Hans-Jürgen Burchardt criticizes the fact that the rich industrialized nations are the main contributors to climate change, yet the Global South bears the brunt of its consequences.
Thus, following the phase-out of nuclear power, Germany’s energy transition is also made possible by cheap coal imports from Colombia. There, mining takes place in highly environmentally damaging open-pit mines; entire communities are forcibly displaced for this purpose, and human rights violations are commonplace. Even the much-lauded green economy, which relies on electric mobility, would not be possible without the lithium reserves in the Andes. Locally, however, lithium mining robs residents of their livelihoods.
The war in Ukraine, too, must be viewed not only from a geostrategic perspective but also through an eco-imperialist lens, in which Russia and the US are attempting to divide up Ukraine’s natural resource deposits among themselves.
Conclusion: The Need for a Positive Vision of Social Development
The outline presented here of a dystopia of planetary development—based on a negative ecological scenario—should have made it very clear: If the right decisions are not made in the coming years and drastic systemic changes are not implemented, the destruction of planetary habitats can no longer be stopped. If, in addition to a biosphere in decline, further stressors arise—such as potentially runaway generative AI, authoritarian and aggressively acting nation-states at war with one another, and the threat of a nuclear inferno—this will likely spell the end of humanity. No more and no less.
The ecological dystopia outlined here does not have to come to pass. Everything depends on how responsibly and competently the current generation—which is currently active in the global centers of power—will act, and on the corrective influence that civil society resistance can exert in this regard.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Klaus Moegling
Prof. Dr. Klaus Moegling is a political scientist, sociologist, and author of the book "Realignment. A peaceful and sustainably developed world is (still) possible." Which you can read here: https://www.klaus-moegling.de/international-edition/
Jewish Artists Condemn Corporate ‘Smear Campaign’ Against Mark Ruffalo for Israel Criticism
“The time is over for spurious charges of antisemitism to be trotted out, this time in the defense of war, oligarchy, and AI domination.”
Mark Ruffalo attending the Crime 101 UK gala screening at the Odeon Luxe in Leicester Square, London. Picture date: Wednesday January 28, 2026.
(Photo by Ian West/PA Images via Getty Images)
Brad Reed
Sep 01, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
A group of over 170 Jewish figures, including many who work in the entertainment industry, have come to the defense of actor Mark Ruffalo as he faces antisemitism accusations from executives at Paramount for criticizing the Israeli government and its ties to powerful corporations.
In a letter released Tuesday, prominent Jewish figures—including filmmaker Joel Coen, director and author Miranda July, actress Debra Winger, actress and director Ilana Glazer, actress and comedian Hannah Einbinder, and playwright Tony Kushner—accused Paramount of waging a “smear campaign” to shield corporate interests from legitimate criticism.
“Enough with the false and dangerous weaponization of charges of antisemitism,” the letter states, “against those who are brave enough to point out the obvious: that the assault on the Palestinian people and the assault on our liberties at home are deeply interconnected, and there is nothing antisemitic about recognizing that fact.”
Ruffalo was accused of being an antisemite after he cited the work of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, father of Paramount CEO David Ellison, in helping the Israeli military carry out a years-long assault on Gaza that has left an estimated 73,500 Palestinians dead.
The actor specifically said that Oracle was powering “an apartheid system of oppression” in the Middle East, which he warned could be exported everywhere if “merged into one of the largest media conglomerates in the world,” a reference to the proposed $110 billion megamerger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery.
However, the Jewish figures’ letter points out that there is nothing at all antisemitic about expressing concerns about corporate megamergers that could fuse the power of mass media with the power of a technology giant.
In particular, the letter says that the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger is part of “a larger project of tech-driven domination, a project Larry Ellison and his partners have never been shy about trumpeting—and one they themselves have explicitly linked to their support for the ongoing depredations being visited on the people of Palestine and their silencing of critics of those horrors.”
The letter also slams Ellison for trying to create an “Orwellian world” as he “consolidates control over what we watch and how we watch it, knowing that as we watch he and his corrupt cohort will always be watching us.”
“The time is over for spurious charges of antisemitism to be trotted out, this time in the defense of war, oligarchy, and [artificial intellignece] domination,” the letter concludes. “That tired playbook has run its course. We stand proudly with Mark Ruffalo, and with all decent people who are bravely rising and speaking truth to power.”
‘At a Breaking Point’: Survey Shows U.S. Teachers Working Second Jobs, Spending Hundreds on Supplies
“They are battling education funding cuts, out-of-control Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, limitations on what they can say, much less teach, and an affordability crisis,” said one union leader.
Roosevelt High School 12th grade government teacher Aldo Parral uses the News Literacy Project’s materials to teach his students about how to read the news in Los Angeles, California on September 15, 2022.
(Photo by Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Jessica Corbett
Sep 02, 2026
COMMON DREAMS
As the academic year kicks off, survey results released Wednesday by the second-largest teachers union in the United States show how educators are struggling because of underinvestment in schools and high prices under a Republican-controlled White House and Congress.
In the lead-up to classes resuming, Grow Progress last month surveyed 2,112 American Federation of Teachers (AFT) members who teach kindergarten through 12th grade about spending, stress, President Donald Trump’s policies, and more.
The pollsters found that a majority of respondents anticipate spending at least $100 to $600 on supplies for their classrooms without being reimbursed. Over a quarter said that school funding issues shift costs to teachers, and supply prices keep rising.
While 61% said they are buying basic supplies, that’s not all that teachers are shopping for this year. Nearly a third are spending on food, hygiene, and student care items, and around a quarter are purchasing specialized tools and accessibility supports as well as items for classroom setup, organization, and decor. Roughly a fifth are buying books and rewards for students.
Half of the teachers surveyed said they anticipate needing to buy food for their students at some point during this school year.
Over three-quarters of them reported seeing negative impacts of the Trump administration’s policies in their schools and communities, with 61% selecting “very negative.” They pointed to funding cuts and privatization of schooling, immigration enforcement that “traumatizes students and families,” rising costs, vulnerable students losing support and protection, political pressure that restricts teaching and inclusion, and issues with bigotry and hostility.
Gasoline prices have stayed at record highs lately thanks to Trump’s illegal war on Iran, which has responded by restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route. Just 15% of teachers said their commute will cost about the same this year, compared with 36% who expect it to be “a little more” and 47% worried it will be “much more.”
A plurality—48%—blamed Trump and Republicans specifically for “the rising costs of groceries, gas, and other goods,” while 28% pointed to government policies and leadership, 18% said tariffs and global instability, and 11% cited corporate greed and profiteering.
Asked to rank their stress level on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being extremely stressed, 62% selected somewhere in the 7-10 range.
Almost a third of teachers said they were somewhat or very likely to leave the profession in the next year. While over half of all respondents said they can’t afford to lose their salary, pension, and benefits, and a quarter pointed to their love for teaching and students, nearly a fifth said the stress and workload make the job unsustainable.
“Teachers are at a breaking point,” said AFT president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “Many work more than one job to make ends meet, and they still dig into their pockets each year for basic classroom supplies, from books to art materials and even food for their students.”
“They are battling education funding cuts, out-of-control Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, limitations on what they can say, much less teach, and an affordability crisis that’s making it even harder for working families to get by, let alone get ahead,” she emphasized. “No wonder they’re stressed and talking about leaving the profession. All of this is taking its toll.”
The survey results followed a report released late last month by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute that suggests leaving the field could lead to a pay boost. Sylvia Allegretto, a senior economist at CEPR and research associate at EPI, found that “in 2025, the teacher pay penalty stood at an estimated 25.2%—meaning teachers earned about a quarter less than comparable college graduates in other professions.”
“Inflation-adjusted weekly wages for public school teachers fell 6.2% over the last three decades, while wages for other college graduates rose 28.8% over the same period,” according to the report. “Teachers typically receive better benefits packages than other professionals, but after accounting for the difference in benefits, teachers’ total compensation penalty was 14.5% in 2025.”
Allegretto said in a statement that “the decades-long teacher pay penalty has taken a heavy toll on public education. Yet, policymakers have failed to make the needed investments to reverse course. That failure is especially troubling in a country as wealthy as the United States, with more than enough resources for its public schools to be the envy of the world.”
It’s not just teachers who are contending with soaring costs as school resumes; parents and students are also facing high prices for academic supplies and other essentials, including food, fuel, healthcare, and housing, due to the Iran War, Trump’s tariffs, and GOP cuts to key programs.
With the midterm elections just two months away, Senate Democrats on Wednesday released a roundup of recent reporting on how families are struggling with back-to-school season, and said that “as Trump continues to claim affordability is a ‘hoax’ and a ‘con job,’ Americans are feeling the strain of Trump’s policies on their pocketbooks.”
“Headlines from across the country this summer lay bare Trump’s cost-of-living crisis as families get ready to send their kids back to school,” Senate Democrats stressed. “Parents are worried about the cost of school supplies and their kids’ lunches, gas prices are at an all-time high for August, and families’ vacations had to be cut short as rising inflation and the cost of airfare hit wallets.”
“Trump’s attempts to pass the buck belie Americans’ reality: His illegal war in Iran, his tariffs, and the rest of Republicans’ failed economic policies have made life unaffordable for families nationwide,” they added. “Because of President Trump and Republicans’ broken promises, working families across the country are now paying more but getting less—and they’re fed up.”
