Artists detonate attack on Trump at the Kennedy Center

Actor and activist Sam Waterson speaks at the Artists United for Our Freedoms rally outside the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., on Friday, March 27, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

Ashley Murray,

 Indiana Capital Chronicle

March 28, 2026 |


WASHINGTON — A host of celebrities outside the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Friday kicked off a weekend of protest against President Donald Trump’s expansion of executive power and his administration’s pressure on freedom of expression — from theater programming in the nation’s capital, to late-night television.

More than a dozen activist performers and creators rallied for Artists United for Our Freedoms, an event organized by the advocacy group Committee for the First Amendment.

Anti-Vietnam War movement icons Jane Fonda and Joan Baez, actors Billy Porter and Sam Waterson, musicians Maggie Rogers, Crys Matthews and Kristy Lee, and authors Ann Patchett and Bess Kalb were among the lineup who delivered performances and speeches.


The speakers focused on what they called Trump’s hostility to First Amendment principles, including his Federal Communications Commission pressuring stations to take late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air. The speakers also said the administration pressured CBS to take Stephen Colbert’s show off the air as a condition for approving a merger related to Paramount, CBS’ parent company.

Under Trump, the Defense Department also booted reporters it considered unfriendly out of the Pentagon’s media workspace. And the administration is fighting The Associated Press in court over White House access after the news organization declined to use Trump’s preferred Gulf of America name for the Gulf of Mexico.

No Kings preview

The event came one day ahead of the third No Kings day, a nationwide protest movement that last drew millions of Americans to the streets in October to rally against a lengthy list of Trump’s actions since beginning his second term.

Fonda, one of the leading members of the Committee for the First Amendment, encouraged the crowd to attend Saturday’s demonstrations.

“Tomorrow we’re gonna see a great example of community building — the No Kings protests. Don’t just go, bring five people,” Fonda said.

The actor and activist revived the committee in late 2025 along with hundreds of artists. Her actor father, Henry Fonda, created the organization during the notorious “Red Scare” in the U.S. during the late 1940s and into 1950s.

At the time, Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy led a campaign to smear actors, musicians and other public figures based on their political leanings, launching numerous false allegations of Communism.

At Thursday’s event, notable moments included Baez and Rogers performing Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’” and Porter delivering a dramatic reading of artist and athlete Paul Roberson’s 1956 testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

“It’s time to break your silence and stand tall against authoritarianism that is taking a hold and consolidating very fast. We know that when fear strikes, silence spreads, and we cannot let that happen,” Fonda said.

“While the war in Iran is not a focus of the Committee for the First Amendment, I want to say that the First Amendment suffers greatly in times of war as the government works to crush internal dissent,” Fonda added, alluding to the war Trump launched in conjunction with Israel just over one month ago.

Kennedy Center cuts

The two-time Academy Award winner also called out to Kennedy Center employees in the crowd who learned Friday of layoffs. The Washington Post first reported the cultural center shedding employees ahead of its two-year closure for renovations.

The legendary performing arts center, now bearing the name of Trump on its facade, will close for renovations on July 4, the president announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, in February.

Trump installed himself as chair of the Kennedy Center board shortly after taking office again in 2025.

Country musician and Alabama native Kristy Lee told the crowd she withdrew from performing at the Kennedy Center.

“I’m not gonna lie, I was looking forward to the opportunity. But playing at that center after what happened would cost me my integrity, and that’s worth more than any paycheck,” Lee said.

Media mergers

Several speakers decried the administration’s support for massive media mergers, including between Paramount Global and Skydance Media, owned by David Ellison, son of billionaire Larry Ellison, Oracle CEO and a major Republican Party donor who worked with Trump to gain a large stake in TikTok.

Paramount-Skydance is now on track to take over Warner Bros. Discovery, which currently owns CNN and HBO.


“The Trump regime has sought to quash dissent and demonize the vulnerable, to consolidate the media into the hands of friendly oligarchs. These moves are right out of the authoritarian playbook,” said Jessica Gonzalez, co-CEO of Free Press, a media watchdog advocacy group.

Logan Keith, a No Kings day organizer and national communications coordinator for the advocacy group 50501, told the crowd “We show up, we speak out, we refuse to be silent.”

“We will gather in the millions in cities, towns large and small. … We will declare in one unified voice ‘America has no kings.’”

In response to the rally, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said, “President Trump is in the process of making the Trump-Kennedy Center the finest performing arts facility in the world for all Americans to enjoy. No one cares what Jane Fonda has to say. Her awful acting has traumatized people enough.”

Big Oil’s Post-Trump About Face Proves Corporations Won’t Regulate Themselves

The sooner we stop expecting companies like Exxon to be voluntary agents of social change, the sooner we can stop the flow of hypocrisy and greenwashing and start working on resolving the social and environmental crises that blight the lives of billions.


US President Donald Trump shakes hands with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, during a meeting with US oil companies executives in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on January 9, 2026.
(Photo by Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Swanson
Mar 28, 2026

Common Dreams

President Donald Trump has long called global warming a hoax, but his sweeping anti-climate agenda has stunned even many of his supporters. Since returning to the White House, he’s withdrawn the US from the Paris Treaty, rolled back critical greenhouse gas regulations, and opened up millions of acres of previously protected public land for oil and gas drilling.

In response, big oil and gas companies have abandoned, without the slightest resistance, the showy public commitments they had previously made to climate transition. For example, BP has slashed green energy expenditures by 70%, Equinor has cut back its renewable capacity targets by almost 40%, and Chevron has reduced its carbon-reduction capital expenditures to about 5% of its total capital expenditures. None of the world’s 12 largest oil and gas companies plan to decrease fossil fuel production, and all of them project that fossil fuels will continue to overwhelm other sources of energy for the foreseeable future, according to a recent evaluation.

Far from a change of heart, this is simply Big Oil returning to form. The petroleum industry has never been serious about curbing emissions, 90% of which globally come from fossil fuels. Indeed, after decades of investment, renewables still account for a minuscule amount—about 0.13%—of total energy produced by the world’s largest 250 oil and gas companies, according to a recent research paper. “I think the article resolves the debate on whether the fossil fuel industry is honestly engaging with the climate crisis or not,” said the paper’s lead researcher. “Their interest ends with their profits.”

Some oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, continue to promise to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. This appears to align them with the consensus of climate science that this is necessary globally to limit warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels. However, Exxon is typical in designating a narrow target of greenhouse gases to eliminate: only those from its own operations, mainly pumping and refining oil and gas, and from buying electricity generated by fossil fuels. This conveniently ignores greenhouse gases from the consumption of its gasoline and other petroleum products, as well as those of its suppliers—which exceed by four times the total covered by Exxon’s commitment.

We should have realized that companies, like Exxon, that knowingly act in pursuit of catastrophe cannot be trusted to stop of their own accord.

Exxon wants us to believe that running its pump jacks and refineries on solar and wind power puts it on the side of the climate transition. It’s cynical buffoonery. But it’s also a sign that America’s leaders and electorate have been willfully blind. We should have realized that companies, like Exxon, that knowingly act in pursuit of catastrophe cannot be trusted to stop of their own accord. As Shakespeare might have said, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in Big Oil but in ourselves.”

The past is prologue. Ever since the advent of industrial capitalism in America in the early 1800s, corporations have consistently served one master, shareholders, delivering them profits by open competition in free markets. From the start, elites have insisted that corporations must regard financial and social objectives as mutually exclusive, even as a single-minded quest for profitability has pushed the system to its breaking point.

We saw the injustice of this belief in the late 19th century, when “robber barons”—who had clawed their way to the top of an unregulated, chaotic economy—justified poverty wages and harsh working conditions by co-opting Charles Darwin’s new theory of evolution, popularized as “survival of the fittest.” Railroad magnate Charles Elliott Perkins—who embodied Social Darwinism by rising from office boy to president of one of the nation’s largest railroads—declared his creed: “That a man is entitled to a living wage is absurd… [If] you take from the strong to give to the weak, you encourage weakness; therefore, let men reap what they and their progenitors sow.”

Early capitalism was marred by periodic, destructive economic downturns. But over time, government acquired fiscal and monetary tools to smooth the boom-and-bust cycles and soften the hard edges of fierce profit seeking through welfare programs, especially during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920) and the New Deal (1933-1938).

However, the bedrock of the corporate mission stayed solid even as the government built new structures on top of it. During the New Deal, for example, leading industrialists joined the American Liberty League to oppose innovations like Social Security. A League leader, echoing his counterpart six decades earlier, proclaimed, “You can’t recover prosperity by seizing the accumulation of the thrifty and distributing it to the thriftless and unlucky.”

The permanent establishment of a taxpayer-funded social safety net in the postwar period only reaffirmed corporations’ unwavering fealty to shareholder value. The president of the mighty Dow Chemical Company, Leland Doan, wrote in 1957: “Any activity labeled ‘social responsibility’ must be judged in terms of whether it is somehow beneficial to the immediate or long-range welfare of the business... I hope we never kid ourselves that we are operating for the public interest per se.”

The corporate community resisted even when the tide of public opinion turned against the malign Jim Crow segregation system in the 1950s and ‘60s. When US Steel was accused of workplace discrimination in 1963, prominent academic Andrew Hacker struck back forcefully: “If corporations ought to be doing things they are not now doing—such as hiring Negroes on an equal basis with whites—then it is up to government to tell them so. The only responsibility of corporations is to make profits, thus contributing to a prosperous economic system.”

Predictably, that same decade, the corporate establishment dismissed the emergence of the environmental movement. In 1962, when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring shocked the nation by exposing the harm to human and animal life posed by the unrestricted use of pesticides, a chemical industry spokesman responded, “If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.”

Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and chief economic adviser to Ronald Reagan, famously summed up the unchanging corporate consensus in words still widely quoted today: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”

For the most part, investors have held their noses and counted their gains. But starting almost a century ago, in 1928, when the invention of mutual funds opened up the stock market to the middle class, “ethical” funds, as they came to be known, entered the arena. They were marketed to individuals and families who wanted their portfolios to reflect their values, and to asset managers who wanted their clients to consider them good citizens.

It is folly to ask business to do the work of government.

For a long time, these socially responsible funds were a negligible part of the industry because they typically underperformed the market. These funds used a strategy called negative screening—excluding certain “sin” industries, such as cigarettes, liquor, and weapons. Unfortunately, negative screening typically yields lower returns (sin often pays in the stock market!) and greater price volatility, due to limited diversification. In addition, there is no reason to believe that negative screening has any discernible effect on stock prices, so it has no power to compel corporations to reform.

The answer to this quandary finally came in the early 2000s, in the form of a new stock-picking tool called Environmental, Social, and Governance, or “ESG” for short. The seductive promise of ESG is “doing well by doing good”—or getting rich by investing in companies that make the world better. On the back of this dream, capital invested in accordance with ESG principles has grown monumentally, to as much as $30 trillion, about one-quarter of the global total of assets under management.

ESG claims that adroitly managing environmental and social risks will improve profitability and, therefore, stock prices. But ESG only counts risks that are financially material, ignoring all social or environmental harm for which a company faces no financial penalty. As you might expect, this often bears perverse results. For example, cigarette companies kill their customers—you can’t get more anti-social than that!—but smoking is legal, and Big Tobacco rarely faces liability for cancer from smoking. That is why tobacco companies are sometimes awarded good ESG scores and even appear in some ESG stock funds. Likewise, fossil fuel companies, which have historically made high returns and avoided significant regulatory penalties, appear in 80% of ESG funds.Whether it be alcoholism, gambling addiction, gun deaths, climate change, or other iniquities, the damage that companies inflict on society without literally paying for it—or the negative externalities, as they’re called in economics—entirely escapes ESG’s radar.

Worse, the key assumption of ESG—that adept social risk management translates into higher profitability—is fundamentally unprovable. Many studies have attempted to show a strong positive correlation between specific ESG policies, like emissions reductions or heightened employee benefits, and financial metrics, like cost of debt or return on assets. But, as I explain in my forthcoming book on socially responsible investment, very few succeed. In the end, the research only allows you to draw one conclusion with confidence: that it is simply not possible to precisely define ESG practices at a granular level, measure their direct effect on financial performance, and compare these results validly across different companies.

But that does not stop ESG rating agencies from trying. ESG ratings have grown into a big business, since fund managers pay dearly for them to guide their stock selection. The rating agency reports are typically long, detailed, and quantitative—but completely unreliable. These reports may look sober and professional, like credit rating reports from companies such as S&P Global or Moody’s. But credit rating agencies are analyzing real financial values to assess a tangible corporate quality: its ability to repay its debts. The numbers are verifiable and have a proven relevance to the projected outcome. That is why credit ratings have a 90% correlation; S&P and Moody’s seldom disagree substantially on a company’s rating.

ESG ratings, by contrast, are all over the map, with a correlation of only 40%. Analysts point to three key factors: the rating agencies choose different terms to measure; they measure them with incompatible methods; and they use contradictory methodologies to combine these idiosyncratic measurements into final ratings. These discrepancies build on each other to produce wildly variant final scores. A company denigrated as a dog in ESG terms by one rating agency may be lauded as a star by another.

If ESG is just an illusion, and negative screening a disappointment, how should investors direct their capital to make corporations more socially responsible? The answer is, they shouldn’t bother.

In the game of capitalism, the role of corporations is to make as much money as they can, while playing by the rules. The role of the state, as we learned in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, is to revise the rules periodically to ensure fair play and a socially positive outcome—without hobbling the players. We do want fierce competition, but we don’t want to destroy the playing field in the process.

Today, corporate profits are at their highest proportion of GDP in 50 years, while wages are at their lowest. Overall, income inequality has never been greater, not even in the Gilded Age, the period immediately preceding the Progressive Era, when many toiled in Dickensian poverty while a few, like the Vanderbilt dynasty, flaunted their extravagant and lavish lifestyles. Now, like then, the people, with justification, are losing faith in the system.

Like our Progressive forebears, we will have to revamp capitalism in order to rescue it. Key objectives must include rebuilding organized labor, since what benefits unions benefits the middle class. We’ll also need to break up de facto corporate cartels that stifle competition, squeeze wages, and lower productivity. To counter the existential threat of climate change, we need a cap-and-trade system that makes industry a partner in carbon reduction, not an opponent, and can serve as a model for other public-private partnerships.

It is folly to ask business to do the work of government. The sooner we stop expecting companies like Exxon to be voluntary agents of social change and acknowledge that they are amoral profit machines, the sooner we can stop the flow of hypocrisy and greenwashing and start working on resolving the social and environmental crises that blight the lives of billions. The path to greater corporate social responsibility leads through the voting booth and the statehouse, not through Wall Street and the C-suite.

This piece was originally published by The MIT Press Reader.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Brad Swanson
Brad Swanson manages socially responsible investments and is an adjunct faculty member in the Costello College of Business at George Mason University. Before entering the finance industry, he was a Foreign Service officer in the US Department of State, with tours of duty in several African countries. He is the author of the book “Profit vs. Progress: Why Socially Responsible Investment Doesn’t Work and How To Fix It.”
Full Bio >

'The world is watching': Analyst warns Trump against destroying American Dream ideals

Ewan Gleadow
March 28, 2026 

RAW STORY

FILE PHOTO: Donald Trump attends a press conference, the day after a guilty verdict in his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, at Trump Tower in New York City, U.S., May 31, 2024. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo

Donald Trump could be judged harshly by the world if he breaks a promise at the heart of the American Dream, an analyst has claimed.

The president and his administration have cracked down hard on immigration in a way that could undermine the "credibility" of the country, Brent McKenzie argued. The Hill columnist considered the crackdown on immigration as a move that could shatter the American Dream in the eyes of the world.

"The process might be long and complicated, but immigrants who followed the rules would eventually find opportunity," McKenzie wrote. "The U.S. was not only a place where people could succeed; it also openly welcomed those willing to work, contribute and build a life. Increasingly, people outside the U.S. are beginning to wonder whether that promise still holds."

McKenzie went on to argue that the "cultural confidence" of the United States depends on immigration, and that the Trump administration is actively undermining the future of the country.

He added, "But recent policy decisions are testing that narrative. When lawful permanent residents are excluded from government programs designed to help small businesses grow, or when people deep in the legal immigration process are suddenly caught in policy pauses and reversals, the message is larger than any single rule.

"In recent years, that confidence has eroded. Immigration has become a central point of political conflict. Today, immigration is no longer just a policy debate. It has become a cultural and political dividing line. And for people watching from outside the U.S., that shift is impossible to miss.

"The question facing the U.S. today is not whether immigration policy should evolve. Every country revises its policies over time. The question is whether the larger promise that once defined the American experience still holds."

Trump's changes to immigration policy in the US could, McKenzie argues, change the tide in countries across the world. This, he believes, is the reason there is such a close eye on the president.

"How the U.S. answers that question will shape not only immigration policy but the country’s place in the world," he wrote. "If the U.S. wants the next generation of innovators, entrepreneurs and builders to continue choosing America, it must do more than defend its borders.

"It must also defend the promise that’s drawn them here for generations. The world is watching to see whether that promise still stands."

'No going back' for next president as Trump makes US reversal 'impossible': analyst

Ewan Gleadow
March 28, 2026 

RAW STORY

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney attend a meeting with G7 leaders and guests, at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo


Donald Trump has made life harder for his Oval Office successor with a series of changes that will likely be impossible to undo, an analyst claimed.

The president's tough stance on geopolitical relations during his second term has hindered the chance of reconciliation under the 48th President of the United States, Salon writer Mike Lofgren argued. The political analyst suggested that Trump's team was undermining steps taken by previous administrations to improve international relations.

Lofgren claims that Trump has pressed the US into a position where there is "no going back to the status quo ante" of previous administrations.

Actions taken against Venezuela and Iran, as well as a period of time where the president appeared set on subsuming Greenland into US territory has seemingly worn international relations thin.

This, Lofgren suggests, is a point of no return that a future president from either party would struggle to navigate.

He wrote, "Yet another future president might have retraced a path toward more balanced economic or security policies once the disadvantages of trade wars or diplomatic and military isolation became obvious.

"But Trump, in large part through his feral nastiness and adolescent vulgarity, has made that sort of reversal all but impossible. A hypothetical president might have distanced himself from NATO, but it’s inconceivable that he would covet an alliance partner’s territory to the point where that government made plans to blow up the airfields in the coveted territory in case of invasion."

Lofgren went on to suggest that longstanding treaties and decades-old friendships between the US and other countries had been ground down slowly, and that Trump had simply sped up the process of a breakdown.

"Trump hates reading, as his spotty education and lack of general knowledge testify," Lofgren wrote. "That reflects his profound lack of intellectual curiosity.

"He attempts to disguise this deficiency with endless boasting about himself and endless denigration of others. He is obsessed with popular media and showbiz and the shabby values they embody.

"It is almost certain, to this observer anyway, that after the last hanging chad in Florida, after the rubble of the World Trade Center had cooled, after the first improvised roadside bomb exploded in Iraq, and after Lehman Brothers collapsed, Trump, or someone like him, was inevitable."

The US Under Trump Is Demonstrably the Most Dangerous Nation in the World

Trump’s military aggression has displaced diplomacy and everyone on this planet is worse off for it.


John Ripton
Mar 28, 2026

Common Dreams

Donald Trump’s imperial ambitions and aggressive use of military power push the world toward a perilous future. At this moment in history, when the world actually needs cooperation among nations to confront existential environmental, technological and socioeconomic crises, diplomacy must promote international collaboration in achieving shared goals. Trump’s administration, however, has completely abandoned diplomacy as a primary means of resolving international concerns and conflict. Military power is swiftly displacing it as the arbiter of competing interests. In a hostile and militarized international political environment “might makes right” is the operative principle. The consequence of policy based on this principle is international chaos and war.

The Trump administration’s foreign policy sends multiple ominous signals to the world. Questions that would seem unthinkable little more than a year ago now are central concerns of the international community. Will the US retreat from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)? Will the US actually attempt to destabilize the economy of its neighbor Canada? Will the US favor Russia over Ukraine? Is Greenland in imminent danger of a US invasion? Is destroying dozens of boats and killing scores of people onboard—all without evidence and due process—justified under international law? Are invasion of another nation and abduction of a head of state an assault on territorial sovereignty and the United Nations Charter? Will billion-dollar seats on a Board of Peace chaired by Trump and displacing UN peacekeeping authority improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza? Will the US employ tariffs as a universal political tool despite their destabilizing consequences for global economic growth and market predictability?







The hubris and ruthlessness of a leader who forces such questions to the surface, particularly when that leader is the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military force, are more than menacing. These leadership character flaws are nevertheless amplified by Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s bellicose and callous use of language concerning war. In discussing the sinking of Iran’s naval force, for example, Trump recalled with obvious satisfaction that a general told him that he preferred destroying ships to capturing them “because it’s more fun to sink them.” In remarks about Kharg Island, Iran’s oil export hub in the Persian Gulf, Trump warned “I’ll knock the hell out of it,” and he, too, would do it “just for fun.” Referring without evidence to alleged drug smuggling into the US on boats, he characterized the extrajudicial murders of the boats’ occupants as “an act of kindness.” He mocked Greenland’s military defense as “two dog sleds.” Trump offered this justification for invading Venezuela: “They took our oil rights...and we want it back.” And, regarding Cuba, Trump declared, “I think I can do anything I want with it.”

Further, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demands that he be called Secretary of War, chief of the Department of War. Hegseth obsessively refers to soldiers as warriors. He gushes over US exploits in the war with Iran. “What it takes to [wage war] with the precision that we do is world class. No one else can do it. And it’s world class Americans... the engine of what makes our country great.” His predatory instincts and disregard for human suffering are deeply alarming: “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”

Elsewhere he describes the American military operation in Venezuela as “spectacularly executed,” claiming it “reestablish[ed] the deterrent effect of the US armed forces.” Equally frightening as brandishing missiles and proclaiming that the greatness of America is its use of military force is Hegseth’s predilection for religious crusade. In his 2020 book American Crusade echoes of ‘holy war’ ring sharply: “Do you enjoy Western civilization? Freedom? Equal justice? Thank a crusader,” he exhorts Americans. “ If not for the Crusades, there would have been no Protestant Reformation or Renaissance. There would be no Europe and no America.”

In Hegseth’s apocalyptic vision those who resist American military dominance are less than human. He casts Iranian leaders as vermin, “desperate and hiding, they’ve gone underground, cowering. That’s what rats do.” His Old Testament wrath and venomous attitude toward Iranians with whom the US was in diplomatic discussion just three weeks ago suggests that he may be at least as dangerous as those he purports to be America’s enemies.

In retrospect, regarding the current war with Iran, diplomacy appears to have been “a ruse,” according to Brett Bruen, a former official of the Obama State Department and National Security Council. His view is supported by comments of the Omani foreign minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi who mediated the negotiations. Appearing on CBS “Face the Nation” just hours before the US-Israeli attack on Iran, he expressed confidence that “the peace deal is within our reach.” He further emphasized that an agreement could be achieved “if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there. Because I don’t think any alternative to diplomacy is going to solve this problem.” Later in the interview Al Busaidi explained that there had been a breakthrough in the central issue of the negotiations: “the agreement that Iran will never, ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb.” He then clarified just what he meant. “I think that there is agreement now that this [the enriched uranium] will be down blended to the lowest level possible, to a neutral level, a natural level...and converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible.” Then, after the first attacks, the Omani foreign minister wrote on social media that “I am dismayed. Active and serious negotiations have yet again been undermined.”

The determined move away from diplomacy to war reflects the idea that weaker nations need to bend to the will of the United States if military invasion is to be avoided. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is influential in crafting this volatile and repressive brand of foreign policy. Edward Wong and Michael Crowley, veteran NY Times international news reporters who travel with Rubio, contend that a core aim of this is to create client states of authoritarian regimes. “It is regime compliance rather than regime change, a doctrine of destroy and deal.” In addition to massive aerial invasion or introduction of ground troops, an overwhelming threat of imminent military invasion or limited military intervention may be enough to exact concessions. This doctrine forces nations into asymmetrical transactions, arrangements where the dominant party (US) dictates the terms. The military action against Venezuela, the abduction of its president and now the pressure to compel new leadership to facilitate favorable oil concessions illustrate how full-scale military invasion underway in Iran may not always be necessary to achieve Rubio’s and Trump’s desired results.

The Trump administration’s campaign against immigrants in the US and international migration in general and its commitment to the defense and spread of Western values and civilization drive the ever-present specter of war. They are now both the national and international agenda of the United States. A militarized crusade, as discussed above, is an integral element of American foreign policy. These imperialist and autocratic designs are organic outgrowths of Trump’s “America first” political objectives. Trump administration officials and right-wing ideologues court ultra-conservative, illiberal and fascist counterparts in Europe. These hyper-nationalistic, anti-immigrant forces are challenging and destabilizing liberal institutions throughout the continent. In this climate no one, not non-European nations nor traditional allies, can trust a US led by Trump.

The pronouncements and policies of his administration are ever poised for military conflict to advance distorted and politically deranged ideas. The US now is demonstrably the most dangerous nation in the world. Its destruction of Iran, its armed intervention in Venezuela, its threatening of neighbors and allies and its military backing of Israel in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon and beyond are just the beginning of a future that will haunt the world and Americans for generations. To mitigate the horrendous suffering Trump’s administration is inflicting abroad as well as at home, to turn back his pursuit of authoritarian power and to salvage the humanity of this nation, US voters must overwhelmingly reject Trump’s political supporters seeking office in the 2026 elections.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


John Ripton
John Ripton writes political essays and research articles. He holds a Master in International Affairs and PhD in History. His dissertation explores the historical impact of global capitalism on Salvadoran peasants and how it contributed to the revolutionary struggle against authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. John's articles and essays have been published in journals, magazines, newspapers and other publications in North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia.
Full Bio >

Profiles in Cowardice: Our 4 Ex-Presidents Still Won’t Speak Out Against Trump!

These former presidents should mobilize the citizenry from the grassroots to the Capitol and take on the unpopular Tyrant Trump; instead, they are living luxurious lives and are largely AWOL.


Former President Bill Clinton (L-R), then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President George W. Bush and his wife Barbara, then-President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, then-Vice President Joseph Biden and his wife Jill, former first lady Rosalynn Carter and former President Jimmy Carter wait for the funeral services for US Sen. Edward Kennedy at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston, Massachusetts August 29, 2009.
(Photo by Brian Snyder/AFP via Getty Images)

Ralph Nader
Mar 28, 2026

Common Dreams

What should the American people, especially the hundreds of millions of their voters, expect Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden to do against the vicious, serial law-violating, violent, corrupt, agency-dismantling Donald Trump and the crony Trumpsters who are wrecking our government and our economy?

These former presidents should mobilize the citizenry from the grassroots to the Capitol and take on the unpopular Tyrant Trump. Having sworn to uphold the Constitution and “…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” they should strongly uphold their patriotic duty to resist tyranny and save our Republic and our besieged democratic institutions, and stop the assault on our civil liberties and civil rights.

Our former presidents all get along with each other. They have the stature to:Get mass media;
Raise immediately large amounts of funds for strong IMPEACH TRUMP citizen groups in every congressional district to increase and expand the present majority of Americans wanting to FIRE TRUMP;
Stay the course as Trump keeps worsening his criminal dictatorship and destruction of our democracy; and
Highlight the many programs they initiated that Trump has illegally destroyed or is dismantling.

Instead, they are living luxurious lives and are largely AWOL from connecting with the existing but overwhelmed civic opposition to Trump. Bush is painting landscapes as Trump has destroyed his AIDS program in Africa, and the Bush wing of the Republican Party. Obama has campaigned for Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill as governors of Virginia and New Jersey, satirizing Trump in some of his speeches. His present passion, however, is the March Madness basketball championships. Clinton has left it up to Hillary, who wrote a guarded New York Times op-ed back on March 28, 2025, taking Trump to task for jeopardizing our national security and not “preparing for real fights with America’s adversaries.”

Then there is Joe Biden, who received then President-elect Trump and Melania on the morning of January 20, 2025, with the gracious “welcome home.” In return, Biden got that afternoon and every day since hundreds of foul epithets from Trump, scapegoating him for almost everything he could fabricate, including solar energy and wind power projects. Delaware Joe managed a few critical replies at a Democratic Party dinner in Nebraska on November 7, 2025. “Trump has taken a wrecking ball not only to the people’s house but to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to our very democracy.” Unfortunately, Biden has mostly been silent.

Credit these retired presidents with knowing the historic dangers and existing damages of the TRUMP DUMP in Washington and around the country. They also know their supporters would be very receptive to their organized, persistent leadership from them to send Trump back to Mar-a-Lago. Why are they AWOL?

First, they fear Trump’s retaliation, upsetting their comfortable lives. Trump is now deep in the QUICKSAND of the Middle East. He is being pilloried by a million stickers at gas pumps picturing Trump pointing to the booming price per gallon and saying, “I did that.” He is openly declaring there should be no elections in November and continues to send or keep his storm troopers in America’s cities. An expanding police state is not exactly a credible perch for effective profanity. Show a modest bit of moxie!

A second excuse is that they have done some of what Trump is doing:Bush’s mass murder in the illegal war on Iraq.
Clinton’s distracting raids abroad against innocents and his womanizing.
Obama’s “signature strikes,” killing over 300 mostly young men in places like Yemen.
Biden’s illegal co-belligerence with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza, which has taken over 600,000 civilian lives.

True enough. But people live in the present and are most worried about what Dangerous Donald is doing NOW to their livelihoods, freedoms, health and safety, and the consequences in casualties and their tax dollars of another endless war.

Our former presidents have no excuses. They simply lack a modicum of courage. Remember Aristotle declared, “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.”

The current political climate demands the powerful emergence of the four previous presidents of our country. The federal district courts are ruling heavily against Trump’s “Injustice Department,” though Trump retains a slightly weakening claim on six Supreme Court Injustices. People of all backgrounds are marching and demonstrating in huge numbers. This weekend, the “No Kings” rallies (he’s already a dictator) anticipate 10 million people nationwide.

The business community, particularly small businesses, are feeling serious harm from Trump’s tariffs, wars, cancelled contracts, and inflationary policies. The labor unions have never been under such attack (notably the federal employees’ union members whose contracts he has torn up), and they are simmering with anger. The universities are also under His illegal shakedown attacks.

What explains the mainstream media’s virtual ignoring of this ABDICATION by these ex-presidents? The reporters mostly despise Trump, who has slandered them (calling them “deranged and demented” for starters) and has extortionately sued news organizations and journalists for millions of dollars and coerced settlements.

The media have reported that some ex-agency officials under the former presidents have excoriated Trump, such as Samantha Power, for closing the major lifesaving Agency for International Development. The formidable Rohit Chopra, who directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Biden, is not reticent to verbally defend his nearly closed-down agency, which had saved consumers many billions of dollars.

However, they are not covering the abdication by BIG GUYS—our former presidents. I have tried in vain to find out why by calling reporters and editors. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Try calling these numbers: The Washington Post: 202-334-6000; The New York Times: 800-698-4637; Associated Press: 212-621-1500; NPR: 202-513-2000; The Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2000.

You may break through and help save our Republic!

Assault on Journalists Shows How Israeli Military Acts ‘In Service of The Settler Movement’: CNN Reporter

“Messiah complexes, talk of revenge, and the use of force against journalists are just symptoms of what’s been happening to the army over the past three years,” said one Israeli journalist.

Israeli soldiers patrol a street during a military operation in the Askar refugee camp in eastern Nablus, Israeli-occupied West Bank, on March 2, 2026.
(Photo by Jaafar ASHTIYEH / AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Mar 28, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces on Friday were caught on camera assaulting and detaining a crew of CNN journalists while they were reporting from the occupied West Bank.

A video of the incident posted on social media by CNN Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond shows the CNN crew walking near the Palestinian village of Tayasir, which in recent days has come under assault from Israeli settlers who established an illegal outpost in the area.

The crew are then accosted by armed members of the IDF, who order them to sit down. After the crew complies with their commands, the soldiers come to seize the journalists’ cameras and phones that are being used to record the incident.

A soldier then puts CNN photojournalist Cyril Theophilos in a chokehold and forces him to the ground. Writing about the assault later, Theophilos said that the soldier “pushed and strangled me,” adding that this kind of violence “is just a symptom of the IDF’s actions in the West Bank.”

According to Diamond, the CNN crew were subsequently detained for two hours. During that time, Diamond wrote, it became clear that the ideology of the Israeli settlers movement was “motivating many of the soldiers who operate in the occupied West Bank” and that the Israeli military regularly acts “in service of the settler movement.”

For instance, one IDF soldier acknowledged during conversations with the CNN crew that the settler outpost near Tayasir was unlawful under both international and Israeli law, but insisted “this will be a legal settlement... slowly, slowly.”

The soldier also said he wanted to exact “revenge” on local Palestinians for the death of 18-year-old Israeli settler Yehuda Sherman, who was killed last week by a Palestinian driver. Palestinians who witnessed Sherman’s killing have said that the driver was trying to stop Sherman from stealing sheep.

The IDF issued an apology to CNN over the incident, insisting that “the actions and behavior of the soldiers in the incident are incompatible with what is expected of IDF soldiers.”

However, this apology was deemed insufficient by Barak Ravid, global affairs correspondent for Axios.

“Apologies are not enough,” he wrote on social media. “There is a need for clear accountability. 99.9% of the time there is zero accountability.”

The soldiers’ actions also drew condemnation from Haaretz reporter Bar Peleg, who argued that problems in the IDF have only grown worse under the far-right government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Messiah complexes, talk of revenge, and the use of force against journalists are just symptoms of what’s been happening to the army over the past three years,” Peleg said. “The chief of staff and the commanding general can write another thousand letters and wave flags all they want, but the process already seems irreversible.”

Palestinian human rights activist Ihab Hassan argued that incidents like the one captured by CNN are all too common for the IDF.

“The Israeli army arrests and assaults journalists, while settlers who commit horrific crimes against Palestinian civilians enjoy total impunity,” he wrote. “This is state-backed terrorism.”

U.S. Nationwide General Strike Planned for May 1: No Kings Organizer

“No work, no school, no shopping. We’re going to show up and say we’re putting workers over billionaires and kings.”


A large crowd of demonstrators gather outside the Minnesota State Capitol during the “No Kings” national day of protest in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on March 28, 2026.
(Photo by Kerem Yucel / AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Mar 28, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, said on Saturday that a nationwide general strike is being planned for May 1 that will be modeled on the day of action residents of Minnesota organized in January against the brutality carried out by federal immigration enforcement officials.

Appearing at the flagship No Kings rally in Minneapolis, Levin praised the strength shown by the Minnesota protesters in the face of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) siege of their city this year, and said his organization wanted to replicate it across the country.

“The next major national action of this movement is not just going to be another protest,” Levin said. “It is a tactical escalation... It is an economic show of force, inspired by Minnesota’s own day of truth and action.”

Levin then outlined what the event would entail.

“On May 1, on May Day, we are saying, ‘No business as usual,’” he said. “No work, no school, no shopping. We’re going to show up and say we’re putting workers over billionaires and kings.”

Levin added that “we are going to build on that courage, that sacrifice” that Minnesota residents showed during their day of action in January, and vowed “to demonstrate that regular people are the greatest threat to fascism in this country.”

In an interview with Payday Report published Saturday, Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg said that the goal of the nationwide strike action would be to send “a clear message: we demand a government that invests in our communities, not one that enriches billionaires, fuels endless war, or deploys masked agents to intimidate our neighbors.”

The No Kings protests against President Donald Trump’s authoritarian government, which Indivisible has been central in organizing, have brought millions of Americans into the streets.

Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris estimated that the previous No Kings event, held in October, drew at least 5 million people nationwide, making it likely “the largest single-day political protest ever.”

Trump suffers worldwide embarrassment as No Kings explodes outside America

Ewan Gleadow
March 28, 2026 
RAW STORY


Demonstrators hold an effigy depicting U.S. President Donald Trump during a "No Kings" protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 18, 2025. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

More than 3,000 No Kings protest events in the United States were bolstered by activists across the world opposing Donald Trump.

Rallies against the president were formed across the US, but also in Germany, Italy, and Australia. Protestors in Paris, France, were spotted holding up "Dump Trump" signs while those in the streets of Madrid, Spain, rallied around a sign reading, "Power to the people." A previous No Kings movement occurred on June 14, 2025, the same day as Trump's birthday. Further protests followed in October, and a third set of rallies across the world took place today (March 28).

Protestors in Amsterdam carried a placard reading, "WTF America," The Daily Beast reported. In Sydney, a man held up a sign that read “We can’t stand him either."

Naveed Shah, who founded the Common Defense group in 2016 to rally military veterans for the sake of progressive politics, spoke of the rapid No Kings growth.

He said, "When I stood at the first ‘No Kings’ rally, we were fighting to protect democracy at home and against federal agents and troops that were deployed on American streets, against a government that was manufacturing a crisis to justify using its power against its own people.

"Today, we’re still fighting that same fight, but now that manufactured crisis has gone global." MoveOn executive director Katie Bethell added their grassroots support to the No Kings protests.

"Our members will be turning out peacefully in the streets because they believe in a better future for this country, and they can’t sit by on the sidelines about what Trump and his administration are doing to our home," she said. "Let’s be clear, the Trump administration has become a threat to the American people at every level. They are waging violence at home and abroad."

An estimated 7 million people showed up to rally against the Trump administration in October — more than the 5 million or so who protested in June — and No Kings organizers are anticipating nearly 9 million people will take to the streets this weekend.

'Gutter racist': Outrage swamps Hegseth as news that he snubbed Black colonel spreads

Brett Wilkins,

 Common Dreams
March 28, 2026 


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gestures as he speaks to the media on the day of a briefing for the House of Representatives on the situation in Venezuela, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C on Jan. 7, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

In what’s being called an “exceedingly rare” move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals.

The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels’ “decadeslong records of exemplary service.”

Military officials told the Times that Hegseth’s chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.

Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.

A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that “the president is not racist or sexist,” an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.

Buria called the officials’ account of his exchange with Driscoll “completely false.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”

Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers’ roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.

Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a “frontal assault” on the “whores to wokesters” who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that “your diversity is not your strength.”

Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.

Leaders of the Democratic Women’s Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth’s blocking of the four colonels’ promotions “outrageous and wrong.”

“The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning,” wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).

“Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power,” the congressional leaders asserted. “It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history.”

“Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color,” their statement said.

“We’ve long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump,” the lawmakers added. “So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America’s servicemembers deserve so much better.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, “If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth’s decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal.”

“Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers,” Reed added.

Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: “He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters’ backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they’ve earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes.”

Other observers also condemned Hegseth’s move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of “undermining national security with his racism and misogyny,” and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the “gutter racist” who “should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused.”

Pentagon staffer stuns with: 'Trump wouldn't want to stand next to a Black female'

Travis Gettys
March 27, 2026

RAW STORY

U.S. President Donald Trump points on the day he addresses military families as U.S. first lady Melania Trump stands nearby during a visit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, U.S., February 13, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

Senior military officials are concerned that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotions of four Army officers because of their race or gender, according to a new report.

President Donald Trump's defense secretary has been pushing Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll and other senior Army leaders to remove the names of the officers, two of whom are Black and another two women, from a promotion list of about three dozen officers, most of whom are white men, senior military officials told the New York Times.

"Earlier this month, Mr. Hegseth broke the logjam by unilaterally striking the officers’ names from the list, though it is not clear he has the legal authority to do so," the Times reported. "The list is currently being reviewed by the White House, which is expected to send it to the Senate for final approval. A few female and Black officers remain on the list, military officials said."

"It is exceedingly rare that a one-star list draws such intense scrutiny from a defense secretary," the report added. "The battle highlights the bitter rifts opened by Mr. Hegseth’s campaign to reverse policies that he says are prejudiced against white officers."

Hegseth has pledged to change "woke" policies from previous administrations, but his heavy scrutiny of female and minority officers has eroded confidence that the promotion system is based on merit and distanced from politics, and the frustration with his approach sparked a heated exchange between his chief of staff Ricky Buria and Driscoll, the Army secretary.

"Mr. Buria chastised the Army secretary for selecting Maj. Gen. Antoinette R. Gant, a combat engineer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, to take command of the Military District of Washington," the Times reported, based on accounts from three current and former defense and administration officials. "The command provides security and performs ceremonial duties in the nation’s capital, and its commander often appears alongside the president at Arlington National Cemetery."

"Mr. Buria told Mr. Driscoll that President Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events," the report added, based on the officials' account.

Driscoll was shocked by his statement and insisted "the president is not a racist or sexist," the officials said, and he then raised the issue with a senior White House official who agreed with him about Trump. Hegseth's office eventually backed down and Gant began serving as the district commander last summer, and was promoted to two-star rank earlier this month.

"Senior officials in Mr. Hegseth’s office have been debating for months whether Mr. Hegseth has the legal authority to strike names from a one-star list before he sends it to the White House," military officials told the Times. "In his role as defense secretary, Mr. Hegseth is supposed to review and approve the list. But to protect the military’s officer corps from being politicized, he has only two options under military regulations, officials said. He can reject or accept the entire list."

Britain

No to antisemitism – no to all racism

Saturday 28 March 2026, by Anti*Capitalist Resistance

The arson attack on four ambulances in a North London synagogue car park was an antisemitic hate crime. ACR condemns this unequivocally. We call on others to do the same, regardless of the claimed motives of the attackers or the alleged views of some synagogue members. Israel’s genocidal war crimes in Palestine and across the Middle East offer no justification for an attack on a public service provided by the Jewish community in Britain.

At a time when racist attacks on all minority communities are increasing, and with the worrying growth of a far-right electoral challenge, we cannot brush aside any racist crime with whataboutery or indifference. Muslims and migrants are currently the principal targets of racist attacks in Britain, but this does not mean that we can ignore anti-Jewish racism.

Whoever carried out this attack, it is a racist crime which targets Jews in Britain for Israeli actions, while doing less than nothing to assist the victims of these actions. We don’t yet know who the arsonists are. Those asserting with absolute confidence, on the basis of amateur “forensic analysis” that this was a Mossad-led false flag, like those asserting with equally absolute confidence that it was an Iranian terrorist operation, are merely exposing their own racist preconceptions.

Socialists are tribunes of the oppressed who oppose all discrimination and social oppression. We stand for universal rights and freedoms; if the Jewish community is attacked by antisemites we oppose it as strongly as when a Mosque is attacked by Islamophobes.

ACR condemns this attack, and all those who justify or relativise it. We will be marching on 28 March to express our opposition to racism in all its forms, whether it targets Jews, Muslims, Black people, migrants, Palestinians or any other oppressed community.

An injury to one is an injury to all.

Attached documents

• no-to-antisemitism-no-to-all-racism_a9472.pdf (PDF - 20.7 MiB)
  Extraction PDF [->article9472]

Footnotes

[1] in the early hours of Monday 23 March.

[2] in the early hours of Monday 23 March.