News Feeds

Millions of low- and middle-income Americans are losing health coverage because the Trump administration allowed the subsidies that made it affordable to lapse, according to a new Public Citizen analysis of government data. The analysis contradicts claims by Trump administration health officials that removal of fraudulent enrollees is responsible for declining Obamacare enrollment.

Enrollment in the Affordable Care Act marketplace decreased from 22.3 million people in 2025 to an estimated 17.5 million in 2026. Administration officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, have attributed the decline to the removal of fraudulent enrollees. Public Citizen’s analysis, which uses the government’s own enrollment data, has found that explanation to be almost entirely wrong.

“The people losing coverage are concentrated at incomes well above the poverty line – exactly the opposite of what the administration’s fraud theory would predict,” said Peter Whoriskey, Health Research Group research director for Public Citizen and author of the report. “These are low- and middle-income families whose premiums doubled after subsidies were cut. They didn’t cheat their way in. They simply can’t afford to stay.”

The administration’s fraud theory – which originated with the Paragon Health Institute, a think tank aligned with the Trump administration – holds that millions of enrollees misreported income just above the federal poverty level to qualify for subsidies. If the theory were correct, the sharpest enrollment declines would appear at that income level.

Instead, enrollment in that bracket has grown. Nearly half of all enrollment losses are among people earning more than four times the poverty level – families whose subsidies were cut when congressional Republicans allowed the enhanced premium tax credits to expire.

A household-scale “nanogrid” with direct current (DC) wiring could trim electricity use by almost a tenth compared to a conventional alternating current (AC) household system, according to a new analysis. The study combines computer simulation, laboratory testing, and rare real-life field data to provide some initial clues about the best opportunities to use DC power in a decarbonized energy system.

The power grid that connects homes and businesses to electricity is built on AC wiring, the result of infrastructure decisions made about a century ago. But most household electrical items, from lighting to computers to kitchen appliances, run on DC.

“This setup requires many conversions between DC and AC, all of which lose some energy,” says study team member Kevin Kircher, a mechanical engineer at Purdue University in Indiana. They also require additional devices such as inverters and rectifiers with the attendant use of critical materials like copper and aluminum.

As the push to “electrify everything” proceeds, those inefficiencies add up, prompting a growing number of researchers to analyze the potential of a streamlined all-DC setup. “We investigated the alternative of connecting natively DC devices through DC wiring,” Kircher says.

One of the most important such devices is a heat pump, a heating and cooling system that represents a big chunk of energy use in all-electric households. “I was surprised by how hard it was to find an off-the-shelf heat pump that could run on DC right out of the box. It was impossible, actually!” Kircher says. “While many heat pumps use DC under the hood, manufacturers configure them to plug into conventional AC outlets.”

So the researchers retrofitted a commercially available household heat pump, which they tested under controlled laboratory conditions. They also installed a retrofitted heat pump in an all-DC “test house” inhabited by a trio of Purdue graduate students. The researchers say it is the first laboratory test of the heating function of a DC-based household heat pump, and the first field test of such a device.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:The Future of the Grid Could Be Parked in Your Driveway

 

Both laboratory and field test data show that a conventional off-the-shelf heat pump can be retrofit to run on DC without loss of performance. The researchers then fed their laboratory and field test data into a model of a DC-based household nanogrid consisting of a rooftop solar array, a storage battery, and a heat pump. With a retrofitted DC heat pump, the system would use 8% less energy over the course of a year compared the same setup with an off-the-shelf, AC-configured heat pump. A heat pump designed to run on DC wiring would yield 9.2% annual energy savings.

These savings correspond to 12.5% and 16.7% lower annual energy costs, respectively, according to the model.

“With a relatively simple retrofit, homeowners with solar power could better utilize their system’s generated power,” and save on their electric bill—just by switching their heat pump to DC, says study team member and Purdue graduate student Aaron Farha.

In monetary terms, however, the savings work out to only about $60 per year. At those rates, it probably wouldn’t make financial sense for people to retrofit individual homes or heat pumps to run on DC power. Nor are we likely to be uprooting the whole AC-based distribution grid anytime soon.

“The important part is that in some ways these systems can live in tandem to each other over the long term,” Farha says. “AC power lines are still an efficient way to transmit power over long distances, and DC power works best when paired with on-site photovoltaics and electric batteries.”

And the energy savings identified in the study could be persuasive for installing DC in new construction or pursuing retrofits of bigger buildings. “There’s a global community working on DC technologies at various scales,” Kircher says. “In my mind the most important direction for work right now is to identify applications where DC makes economic sense.”

Source: Farha A.H.P. et al. “Laboratory and field testing of a residential heat pump retrofit for a DC solar nanogrid.” Applied Energy 2026.

Image: © Anthropocene Magazine.

A vast system of Atlantic currents that delivers warmth to northern Europe is at risk of collapse, according to a growing body of research. The latest study to warn of its demise finds there is at least a 10 percent chance that a collapse may already be “locked in.”

Read more on E360 →

The fall of 2025 marked an escalation in political repression in the United States, targeting labor organizers, Palestine solidarity activists, and immigrant rights advocates. Two cases—Tom Alter in Texas and John Caravello in California—illustrate how this repression operates and how it can be fought.

This article argues that defense campaigns must treat the courtroom not as a site of justice, but as one terrain within a broader strategy of class struggle. This approach—what we can call revolutionary legalism—rejects both liberal faith in the courts and abstentionist refusal to engage them. Legal tactics must be subordinated to a different goal: building independent working-class power.

Two cases, one moment

Tom Alter, a tenured associate professor of history at Texas State University, labor historian, union member, and socialist activist, was fired in September 2025 after speaking at an online Revolutionary Socialism conference on his own time from his home as a private citizen. A self-described “fascist” YouTuber secretly recorded the event, edited the footage, and launched a smear campaign. Within days, Texas State President Kelly Damphousse announced on social media that Alter was fired for “inciting violence” and “jeopardizing the health and safety of the university community.” There was no hearing, no due process, just a Facebook post.

The response arrived promptly. Students protested for five days. The Texas State Employees Union (CWA Local 6186) mobilized, AAUP provided legal counsel, and major academic organizations issued statements of support. On 26 September, a district judge ordered Alter’s temporary reinstatement with back pay. The university complied formally but kept him out of the classroom and upheld the firing after a pro forma hearing. His lawsuit continues.

But the central story is what followed. Alter did not retreat; he helped launch a broad, public defense campaign.

Defense campaigns must treat the courtroom not as a site of justice, but as one terrain within a broader strategy of class struggle.

John Caravello, a philosophy lecturer at California State University Channel Islands and member of the California Faculty Association, faced a different form of repression. During an ICE raid in July 2025, he removed a tear gas canister from beneath a protester’s wheelchair. Initially charged with a misdemeanor, he was later indicted on a federal felony charge under 18 U.S.C. § 111—assaulting a federal officer with a “deadly weapon”—the very canister agents had deployed. He faced up to twenty years in prison.

The California Faculty Association responded with a public campaign, organizing rallies and condemning the charges. On April 9, 2026, a federal jury acquitted Caravello after two hours of deliberation, finding him not guilty of assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon on a federal officer. His case, however, became a rallying point. When Alter’s speaking tour reached Los Angeles, Caravello joined him on stage linking academic repression to the criminalization of immigrant solidarity.

Two different cases, two legal forms—but a common dynamic: Repression met not with silence, but with organized public resistance.

Defense campaigns as class strategy

The Committee to Defend Tom Alter (CDTA) illustrates a strategic orientation largely absent from the current U.S. Left: turning an individual grievance into a collective struggle. Instead of treating Alter’s firing as a narrow dispute over academic freedom, the campaign framed it as part of a wider pattern of repression—linking labor rights, political speech and state power.

What distinguishes the CDTA is not its legal strategy but its political one: refusing to withdraw from private litigation and insisting on building a public campaign for free speech and academic freedom. From the outset, the case was treated not as a personal matter but as a collective fight. This orientation is reflected in the committee’s deliberately open and non-sectarian structure. As Alter told Inside Higher Ed, the CDTA “includes whoever chooses to be a part of it for however long they want to be involved.” Organized around a small core of five people who work on the case weekly, participation extends outward to union members, graduate students, faculty, and community activists, with local committees formed across multiple cities—including New York, Chicago, the Bay Area, and Connecticut. This breadth is strategic. By refusing narrow political gatekeeping, the campaign expands its base and situates the case within a wider class context.

By refusing narrow political gatekeeping, the campaign expands its base and situates the [Tom Alter] case within a wider class context.

The resulting coalition is unusually broad: labor unions such as the Texas State Employees Union (TSEU) (CWA), the California Faculty Association, and the AFT; academic bodies including AAUP and major history associations; and civil liberties and Palestine solidarity organizations. This is not a single-issue campaign or a sectarian front. It is a consciously constructed alliance that insists that Alter’s right to speak, organize, and teach is a working-class issue.

Public mobilization is integral to this approach. Rallies accompanied key legal moments—from campus protests in San Marcos to demonstrations at the headquarters of Texas State University System—and unions helped organize a national speaking tour that turned the case into a vehicle for wider organizing. The goal is not just reinstatement, but the construction of networks and capacities that outlast the case itself.

Caravello’s defense followed a similar trajectory, with unions organizing public pressure and now moving toward a cross-union defense council. Together, these efforts point toward the reemergence—still embryonic—of a coordinated, labor-centered approach to political defense. In this respect, they echo the tradition of the International Labor Defense (an initiative of the early Communist International): non-partisan, expansive, and oriented not only toward legal resolution, but toward building the collective power necessary to confront repression.

The speaking tour as organizing tactic

By February 2026, Alter had turned his firing into a three-month national speaking tour (February–April 2026) that quickly expanded beyond its initial scope. What began as a “patchwork” of invitations became a coordinated, coast-to-coast campaign spanning more than nine states with stops at campuses, bookstores, bars, and community venues. He spoke at more than forty venues, including campuses such as Rutgers, Loyola, the University of Ohio, UC Berkeley, San Francisco State, San Diego State, Cal State LA, UT Austin, University of Pittsburgh, and the CUNY Graduate Center, as well as independent bookstores like Midnight Books in Los Angeles and informal venues like Sean Patrick’s in San Marcos. He shared stages with Sang Hea Kil, John Caravello, members of the CUNY Fired 4, a Prairieland defendant, union activists, and student organizers, linking his case to a wider field of struggle.

The tour had two strategic aims, neither of which was reducible to “raising awareness.” First, CDTA used the case as a lever for organizing. At each stop, attendees were encouraged to join unions, sign petitions, and participate in local defense activities. The tour did not simply draw crowds; it built connections. As Alter told Inside Higher Ed, the events consistently brought together students, faculty, and community members, strengthening campus organizing.

Crucially, the tour fed back into the union strategy. The Texas State Employees Union (TSEU) began bringing Alter to campus not only to speak about his case but also to recruit members, demonstrating in practice that a union is not a transactional service provider but a vehicle for collective struggle. In this sense, the tour served both as political education and organizational development, using a concrete case to reshape workers’ understanding of the role of unions.

The tour deliberately linked academic repression to broader attacks on immigrant communities.

That dynamic points to a broader strategic insight that liberal legalism cannot grasp. The public orientation of the CDTA—the rallies, the tour stops, the joint appearances with local activists—is not window dressing around the “real” work of litigation. It is work. When Alter speaks in a union hall in Connecticut or a bar in San Marcos, he is not just telling his story. He is modelling what resistance looks like. He is showing faculty and staff that a firing need not be tolerated in and that a defense campaign can be a platform for organizing, not just for damage control.

The results bear this out. As Labor Notes reported in November 2025: “Membership in the Texas State chapters of AAUP and the Texas State Employees Union has doubled since Alter’s firing as workers unite to defend academic freedom and democratic rights across the state.” That doubling did not come from a clever legal brief or a favorable ruling. It came because the unions—TSEU and AAUP Texas—moved quickly to help form and support the CDTA and go public, because Alter got on a plane, stood on stages, and asked people to join their unions. The courtroom did not build that membership. The speaking tour did.

Second, the tour deliberately linked academic repression to broader attacks on immigrant communities, Palestine solidarity activists, and labor militancy. When UT Austin canceled his April 22 event, citing “security concerns” just days after hosting Clarence Thomas, the TSEU relocated the event to a nearby bar, turning administrative repression into an organizing opportunity.

This is defense work as class struggle. The objective is not simply to win a legal case, but to build infrastructure—to leave behind stronger unions, more militant organizations, and a network capable of responding collectively when repression strikes again.

A century of revolutionary legalism

The CDTA’s approach is not without precedent. For nearly a century, the U.S. Left has grappled with how to turn legal defense into political power—with varying degrees of success.

Lessons from the ILD

The International Labor Defense, founded in 1925 as a political solidarity and legal arm of the Comintern, remains the most developed model we have for this kind of work. It was not a spontaneous outpouring of outrage. It was an institution—a permanent defense organization with a national office, full-time staff, a monthly magazine (Labor Defender), and a budget. Within a year of its founding, the ILD had 156 branches and 20,000 individual members, with 75,000 more affiliated through union and community endorsements1For ILD membership and structure, see Marxists.org ILD entry and Bryan D. Palmer, James P. Cannon and the Origins of the American Revolutionary Left, 1890-1929 (2007), Chapter 9..

The ILD’s principles are worth restating.

Non-partisanship. The ILD did not demand political loyalty. At its founding, James Cannon and Bill Haywood identified 106 “class war prisoners” in U.S. jails—striking miners, Wobblies, anarchists, and anti-fascist immigrants. None were members of the Communist Party, yet the ILD defended them all. This was not ecumenical sentimentality. It was strategic clarity: the enemy is the capitalist class. A historical caveat is necessary: The ILD’s non-partisanship was strongest in its early years, from 1925 to 1927. As Stalinization intensified, the organization became more sectarian—a reminder that all defense work must guard against bureaucratic capture.2On the ILD’s early non-partisanship and later Stalinization, see Palmer (2007) and the Labor Defender archives.

Mass Mobilization. In the Sacco and Vanzetti campaign, Cannon rejected liberal faith in legal appeals. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied a new trial in 1927, he wrote in the Labor Defender: “The power of the workers is the court of last resort to which our appeal must be made.”3James P. Cannon, “From the Supreme Court of the capitalists to the Supreme Court of the laboring masses,” Labor Defender, May 1927. He was explicit about what this meant organizationally: not legal briefs, but strikes. “We must confidently proceed at all costs to still further arouse and organize the anger of the working men and women against the slaughter of the two labor fighters and assist it to take the form of huge mass demonstrations and effective strikes.”4James P. Cannon, “A campaign of the mass movement,” Labor Defender, September 1927.

Against the liberal “soft pedal,” Cannon drew a sharp line between class-struggle defense and liberal reformism. He identified two competing policies within the Sacco-Vanzetti movement. The first—his own—puts the center of gravity in the protest movement… puts all faith in the power of the masses and no faith whatever in the justice of the courts. The second, which he called “the policy of ‘respectability,’ of the ‘soft pedal’ and of ridiculous illusions about ‘justice’ from the courts of the enemy,” relied primarily on legal proceedings and sought to obscure the issue of class struggle.5James P. Cannon, “Who can save Sacco and Vanzetti?” Labor Defender, January 1927.

Political Education. In his 1949 speech on the trial of the Stalinist leaders—a case he opposed even as he condemned Stalinism—Cannon articulated a revolutionary approach to political trials. The Stalinists, he argued, were indeed criminals, but “they are being tried in the wrong court” for the wrong crime. “The very provision of the Constitution… was designed specifically to prevent Congress from passing laws which would proscribe the ‘advocacy’ of any doctrine. But this indictment under the Smith Act… is an indictment against speaking and writing.”

For Cannon, the purpose of a political trial was never to prove innocence within the framework of the enemy. It was to turn the courtroom into a platform: “We will go in that courtroom not as defendants at all, but as accusers of the prosecutors and the system they represent.” His testimony in the Smith Act trial of 1941, published as Socialism on Trial, is a classic example of this approach.

Material Aid. The ILD sent $5 per month ($95 adjusted to today) to each of more than 100 prisoners and $20 ($380) to dependent families; at Christmas, it sent $50 to families and $25 to prisoners. “It must be recorded to the shame of the labor movement that poverty, hardship, and neglect have too often been the fate of dependent families,” the ILD declared. This was not charity. It was a statement: the working class takes care of its own.6On ILD material aid and financial transparency, see Palmer (2007) and the Labor Defender archives.

The 1960s–70s resurgence of political defense

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a wave of political trials tested the idea that mass defense could transform legal proceedings. The Chicago Conspiracy Trial (1969–70) saw eight antiwar activists—including Bobby Seale, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman—use the courtroom as a platform to indict the Vietnam War rather than to prove their innocence. The defense attorney William Kunstler turned the proceedings into political theater. Although five were initially convicted, the Seventh Circuit reversed all convictions in 1972, citing judicial bias.

The campaign to free Angela Davis (1970–72) went further, systematically integrating legal defense with mass mobilization. Facing capital charges tied to the Marin County courthouse shootout, Davis was placed on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list before her arrest. The defense campaign refused to treat the case as a narrow legal matter. The “Free Angela” movement mobilized worldwide, organizing rallies, fundraisers, and educational events that turned her prosecution into a global referendum on racism and political repression. As Charlene Mitchell, who led the National United Committee to Free Angela Davis, concluded: “The major lesson we learned was that the legal and mass defense of political prisoners is an inseparable entity; that you cannot free a political prisoner in the courtroom alone, and you cannot, without a good, political legal defense in the courtroom, make a mass defense.”

Davis herself understood this double orientation. As she later recalled, “the lawyers would have to understand from the outset that what happened in the courtroom would, of necessity, be related and coordinated with the campaign in the streets.” The legal defense was inseparable from mass pressure, which helped frame the trial not as an isolated criminal case, but as a political indictment of the carceral state. Her acquittal in 1972 was widely understood as a victory both inside and outside the courtroom.

The liberal settlement trap

But not every defense campaign maintained this orientation. The most instructive warning story dates back to the mid-1970s. In the wake of Watergate, the FBI and CIA underwent unprecedented public scrutiny. The Carter administration responded not by dismantling the surveillance apparatus, but by restoring its legitimacy. New “guidelines” were introduced, and a secret federal wiretap court was established—one that has never denied a government request in practice. The goal was to convince the public that abuses were over and that the “new FBI” could be trusted.

In this context, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) filed a lawsuit against the FBI alleging a decades-long campaign of infiltration, disruption and frame-ups. The government sought to settle, offering standard terms: modest compensation, a promise to “abide by the law” and an implicit agreement to ratify the legitimacy of the reformed security apparatus. Many accepted similar agreements. Jane Fonda settled her case in 1979.7See Larry Seigle, “Workers’ Rights versus the Secret Police,” in Jayko, ed., FBI on Trial, Pathfinder, 1988, pp. 214-248. The ACLU negotiated settlements that effectively gave political cover to the very institutions it exposed. The price was political, not just financial. As one participant on the SWP’s legal team observed, such agreements helped convince the public that the “new FBI” deserved confidence.

The SWP refused any settlement that would legitimize the state’s narrative. What it sought in court was not mainly financial compensation but a political and constitutional affirmation that advocating socialism and the revolutionary replacement of capitalism was protected under the Bill of Rights. Attorney Leonard Boudin and SWP leaders stressed the fundamental issue: whether individuals and organizations could legally organize for socialism without state surveillance, harassment, or prosecution.

Judge Griesa’s 1986 ruling was a political victory for the entire socialist movement. It declared the FBI’s infiltration and surveillance of the SWP unconstitutional and a violation of First Amendment rights. For the first time, it was established that government informants inside a political organization could themselves constitute a constitutional violation. The court awarded $264,000 in damages to the party and issued an injunction barring the government from using illegally obtained files. The case took fifteen years. Victory required patience, persistence, and a clear political perspective.

Revolutionary legalism as a programmatic alternative

The concept of revolutionary legalism is not new. It was first systematically theorized by Piotr Stutchka, the first Soviet People’s Commissar for Justice, and debated by his younger colleague Evgeny Pashukanis. Drawing on Lenin’s tactical use of tsarist courts and the Duma, Pashukanis argued that a revolutionary party must avoid two errors: fetishizing legal forms (treating courts as neutral arbiters of justice) and the “fetishist denial of legality” (refusing to use legal weapons at all). Pashukanis wrote that Lenin “knew not only how mercilessly to expose tsarist, bourgeois etc. legality, but also how to use it, where it was necessary and when it was necessary.” This is revolutionary legalism: using bourgeois legal forms tactically, without mistaking them for instruments of justice or sources of legitimacy. This dialectical approach has seen a revival in recent years as neoliberal capitalism and the rise of authoritarian populism have drastically eroded democratic rights, forcing socialists to rediscover the Leninist art of fighting on every terrain.8Igor Shoikhedbrod, “Revolution or legality? Confronting the spectre of Marx in Habermas’s legal philosophy,” Contemporary Political Theory 20, no. 1 (2021): 72-95.

The courtroom is a battlefield, not a sanctuary. This distinction defines revolutionary legalism. It does not reject the use of courts, but refuses to treat them as neutral arbitrators or sources of legitimacy. Against liberal legalism, which seeks vindication through procedure, and against forms of movement lawyering, which can drift toward settlement as an endpoint, revolutionary legalism subordinates legal methods to the construction of political power. The question is not simply whether to win, but how and at what political cost.

Private negotiations create settlements. Public fights produce power.

This orientation has concrete consequences. First, discovery is a weapon. Subpoenas, depositions, and document requests should be used to expose how repression is organized, not just to build a case. Second, hearings are organizing opportunities. Every court date should be paired with public mobilization, turning legal proceedings into moments of political confrontation. Third, settlements must be judged politically. A good settlement contains no gag order, admits no legitimacy to the state’s original repressive action, and leaves a public record.

Agreements that restore institutional legitimacy without shifting the balance of power are defeats, regardless of compensation. Transparency, accountability, and structural concessions must be non-negotiable terms.

The Alter case poses these questions in real time. The lesson is to use the state’s own procedures to expose its operations while building power outside the courtroom.

When Texas State offered a post hoc “hearing,” it was an attempt to launder an illegal firing through procedural form. When administrators upheld the decision, they bet that the process itself would exhaust resistance. The response has moved in the opposite direction. Rather than retreat into litigation, the campaign has expanded outward, using the case not only to fight for reinstatement but also to expose the political forces behind the firing and to build the capacity to resist the next attack.

The lesson is obvious. Private negotiations create settlements. Public fights produce power.

The limits of the courtroom

The most persistent illusion social activists face is that “the law” stands above class struggle. It does not. The law codifies existing property relations and is enforced by courts and police, who answer to the same state.

First, the courts are not neutral. They protect property and class privilege. They do not dispense justice; they manage a crisis. A judge may rule for Alter—and that would matter—but it does not mean the courts are on our side. It means that, in this instance, the contradictions of bourgeois democracy worked in our favor.

When Cannon wrote that “the power of the workers is the court of last resort,” he was not dismissing legal tactics.9James P. Cannon, “The power of the workers is the court of last resort,” Labor Defender, September 1927. He insisted that no procedural victory matters unless it is backed by organized capacity outside the courtroom. The rule of law protects the ruled only when the ruled are organized enough to make violations costly. This does not mean refusing to use the courts. It means entering them with clarity: as a tactic, not a strategy; as one front in a struggle that will be decided in unions, workplaces, and the streets.

The rule of law protects the ruled only when the ruled are organized enough to make violations costly.

Second, legal victories do not translate to class power. Even if Alter is reinstated, Texas State remains a capitalist institution. Even if the AAUP secures reforms, administrators will still face donors and political pressure. The point of a defense campaign is not simply to win a better deal, but to build the capacity to fight—and ultimately to challenge the class structure itself.

Third, the state learns and adapts. After the SWP lawsuits of the 1970s, the FBI did not stop spying; it refined its methods. The same will happen here. No defense campaign can permanently restrain repression. At best, it can buy time, create space, and help organize the forces capable of confronting repression and its core roots.

This is why the CDTA’s focus on building infrastructure matters more than the lawsuit’s outcome. If Alter loses his case but leaves behind a functioning cross-union defense council and a network of organizers prepared to respond to repression, the campaign will have succeeded. If he wins but the organization dissolves, the state will return stronger, and the Left will start from zero.

Conclusion: Building the capacity to fight

The ILD slogan—”An injury to one is an injury to all”—is an organizing principle. The fight for immigrant rights, academic freedom, Palestinian solidarity, and union organizing is one and the same.

The significance of the Alter and Caravello cases lies in the strategies they have generated. They show how defense campaigns can become sites of political recomposition—bringing together unions, activists, and communities in common struggle. The question is not whether repression will continue—it will. The question is whether the Left will be prepared to respond.

Revolutionary legalism rests on a simple premise: the courtroom is only one battlefield. The decisive terrain lies elsewhere—in the working class’s capacity to organize, mobilize, and act collectively. Defense campaigns that grasp this can turn moments of repression into opportunities for growth.

What would it take to build a permanent defense infrastructure today? Not a single centralized organization, but a network: regional defense committees linked through unions, civil liberties groups, and community organizations, with a shared playbook for rapid response. The CDTA’s “patchwork” model—local committees across multiple cities—is a starting point. The next step is to formalize coordination so that when one sector is targeted, others mobilize immediately.

The trial will come. The state will escalate. The university will try to wait out the campaign. But if the networks being built now endure—if unions, academic associations, and community organizations remain active—the outcome of the case will not be the sole measure of success.

The real victory will be the infrastructure that endures when the case is closed. The real victory will be a Left that knows how to defend itself.

The Committee to Defend Tom Alter continues to organize. To sign the statement of support, to request an endorsement from your organization, or to get involved in local organizing, visit defendtomalter.org.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: Karolus_BR; modified by Tempest.

The post Two cases, one tradition appeared first on Tempest.

La Via Campesina Honduras has emphatically denounced the law which it says not only orders eviction but also legally shields those lands against any future agrarian reform claim.

The post Honduras: Peasant Organizations Denounce 1,000 Eviction Orders appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

When Rebecca Lindsey was fired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last February, the first thing she did was stew. Then she worried about what was going to happen to the website she and her team had built over the last decade and a half. Lindsey had long been the lead writer and editor, and more recently the program manager, of Climate.gov, a site that distilled the agency’s research on climate change into easy-to-understand, free resources for the public. 

She was right to be concerned: Within a matter of months, the Trump administration had eliminated the rest of the staff supporting Climate.gov and shut down the website — ironically, to comply with an executive order calling for “restoring gold standard science.”

“I couldn’t stand the thought of it all being thrown away,” Lindsey said of the website, which had been used by teachers, community leaders, and policymakers. It had also given researchers in the government important insight into what everyday Americans needed to know about climate science and how to answer their questions effectively. Members of the former Climate.gov team met periodically to discuss what could be done to preserve the work. By the end of last summer, they’d decided to create an independent version of the site. It launched late last month with a new nongovernmental domain: Climate.us. 

The intent behind Climate.us isn’t just to save what was on the Climate.gov website when it died, but to continue to update it with new visuals, explainers, features, and Q&As, making climate science relevant to people with resources that are vetted by scientists. “We just try to constantly take the pulse of what scientists say is valuable and important and needs to be talked about and explained,” Lindsey said.

Since its launch two weeks ago, the new site has gotten about 800,000 page views — an impressive number, considering that the old NOAA site had been getting about a million views a month, according to Lindsey.

Read Next Why the federal government is making climate data disappear Kate Yoder

After President Donald Trump took office a second time, some of the most easy-to-understand resources to help people understand the warming planet disappeared. The National Climate Assessments, congressionally mandated reports released every four years that translated the science into warnings for policymakers and the public, vanished last summer. In December, the Environmental Protection Agency removed at least 80 webpages about the causes, indicators, and effects of climate change. The EPA webpage explaining the causes of climate change no longer lists human activity as a direct driver of global warming. It now emphasizes — misleadingly — natural processes. 

Izzy Pacenza, who monitors government websites for the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, called it “an all-out assault on climate information.”

Thousands gather at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., to defend science as a public good and central pillar of social progress in March 2025. Astrid Riecken / The Washington Post via Getty Images Beyond the federal government

As organizations race to fill the gap left by the United States’ attack on its own scientific knowledge, many experts see an opportunity to shield research and data from the shifting winds of politics. The world’s science has relied on massive support from the U.S. government, but experts see a future that disperses some of its responsibilities, including how data is collected, handled, preserved, and used.

“It can’t just be the federal government anymore,” said Janice Lachance, executive director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union, the largest Earth and space organization in the world. “That’s proven to us that that’s unreliable, that there’s too much control in very few hands. And so how do we distribute this to like-minded organizations, civil society, and [nongovernmental organizations] who care about it?

The American Geophysical Union is trying to fill the void where it can. It has launched a global initiative to ensure that environmental datasets are more resilient against threats such as political interference, pulling together a group of about 100 experts around the world. It’s also working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science, hosting an academic network that allows U.S. scientists to participate in key international reports even after the Trump administration withdrew from the group. Along with the American Meteorological Society, it has also released an invitation for climate manuscripts to maintain the research momentum of what would have been the sixth National Climate Assessment, with plans to eventually publish a special climate collection across different peer-reviewed journals.

Read Next Why this NASA climate scientist wants you to stay angry Clayton Aldern

For many former federal researchers like Lindsey, trying to carry on their previous work at nonprofits and through independent initiatives has been challenging. 

Adam Smith, who led a project tracking billion-dollar weather and climate disasters at NOAA before the agency ended the program last year, has taken the work over to the nonprofit Climate Central. The project is now up and running with all the same data and methods, but it took almost a year to get it fully where it was back at NOAA. The research is important, Smith said, because it quantifies the economic effects of extreme weather, helping to communicate the real-world consequences of climate change to businesses, policymakers, and the public. He is working to develop the project further, documenting disasters that cost $100 million or more back to 1980. 

Creating an independent copy of the Climate.gov site wasn’t easy, either. Researchers who had no experience fundraising had to crowdsource money and court philanthropists to back their work, Lindsey said. Web developers had to update all the old links that directed people to the defunct original site. The Climate.us team wanted independent scientific review for their materials, as they had done at NOAA, but some scientists declined to put their names on a defunded federal project because of unwanted publicity or fear of retaliation. 

Lindsey managed to revive the site as one of just three full-time staff, compared to roughly eight people who were running the operation under NOAA full-time. 

“In a lot of ways, I feel I’m back in 2010 when we first started building Climate.gov,” she said. “There are days when I think, ‘What am I doing? Do I have it in me to start this all over again?’”

These efforts to save climate information are crucial, experts said, but it’s tough for a patchwork of nonprofits, universities, and independent initiatives to fill the vacuum left by the federal government removing the most accessible resources about climate change. “No nonprofit is going to have the reach of the federal government, and so I think that there’s a massive gap in terms of people learning about where they can find these resources,” said Gretchen Gehrke, an environmental and public information researcher who co-founded the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. Philanthropic funders can be fickle, too, raising questions about financial sustainability. “Truly, all of us are scrambling for funding and underfunded,” she said.

Nonprofits also don’t have the instant recognition that the government does, which can make it harder to earn public trust. When Smith started running the billion-dollar disaster project at Climate Central, for example, he found that some people didn’t know that anyone from NOAA was still involved. Now, the top of the website makes it clear that Climate Central is continuing NOAA’s dataset, with the same methods and the same lead scientist. 

A sign that reads “NOAA Saves Lives” is seen in a corridor of the University of Colorado at Boulder in May. Ulysse Bellier / AFP via Getty Images From rescue to reform

For information and data advocates, the current crisis is a wake-up call. “Guess what? We have really terrible and really insufficient data policies,” Gehrke said. As the Trump administration tests those vulnerabilities, it gives these stakeholders insight into what needs to change to protect government information from the political whims of future administrations. That could include writing specific requirements for agencies into law and building up Congress’ oversight capacity and enforcement mechanisms. 

When public-facing platforms like Climate.gov disappear, people tend to wonder, How can we bring this product back? without examining the structural failures that led it to be vulnerable in the first place. Sonia Wang, senior director at the Data Foundation’s Center for Climate and Environmental Data, uses the metaphor that people usually focus on the fountain — the shiny map or platform — rather than the plumbing behind it. This invisible infrastructure is much more fragile than people realize, Wang said, sometimes relying on one person who’s been maintaining a dataset for decades, or relationships the federal government has built over time. 

“This was always a problem, regardless of administration,” Wang said. “I think we’re just seeing more of the cracks be exposed now with the rapid decline in some of our federal partners being able to actually carry on their work without the staff.” 

As organizations work to shore up the plumbing of the data that helps us understand the world, there’s increasingly a sense that they can’t count on government support like they did in the past. “It happened in the United States last year, and it continues this year, but it could happen anywhere,” Lachance said. “And we just don’t think that critical scientific data should be vulnerable to the political winds of the day.” 

toolTips('.classtoolTips5','In scholarly research, a “peer-reviewed” study or article is one that has been independently evaluated by other experts in the field to assess scientific accuracy. Not all studies go through a peer-review process, so peer-reviewed studies and journals typically indicate a higher level of confidence in methodologies and results.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The plan to make climate science harder to erase on Jul 7, 2026.

Alors que les fondements de l’alliance transatlantique sont mis à rude épreuve par l’unilatéralisme croissant des États-Unis, l’Europe se voit contrainte d’envisager sa propre défense. Mais à quoi ressemblerait cette défense – et quel en serait le coût, tant sur le plan financier que politique ? Les dirigeants verts Franziska Brantner et Rui Tavares s’entretiennent avec Édouard Gaudot sur la manière dont l’Europe peut se protéger sans perdre de vue les raisons pour lesquelles elle mérite d’être protégée. 

Edouard Gaudot: En quelques mots, comment qualifiez-vous l’état de l’Europe et celui du monde ? 

Rui Tavares: Je dirais une crise généralisée de l’imagination. D’ordinaire, l’imagination vient après la guerre. Là, tout l’enjeu serait d’avoir l’imagination avant le conflit. 

Franziska Brantner: Pour moi, ce serait la confusion et le manque de courage côté européen, et, pour les Américains et le reste du monde, le retour de la puissance et de la folie. 

Rui Tavares: Tout à fait. Il y a une forme de folie qui accompagne cette absence d’imagination, comme si on vivait une réalité parallèle. 

Comment peut-on être un leader écologiste dans un monde plongé dans le chaos et les conflits ? 

Rui Tavares: Il faut être très pédagogique, et très serein à la fois, pour ne pas effrayer les gens, mais les préparer à avoir des débats politiques et à faire des choix qui sont très durs. Mais l’opinion mûrit : il y a 10 ans, il aurait été impossible de parler avec réalisme d’une communauté européenne de défense. Maintenant, tout le monde voit qu’avec Trump, si les Européens ne font pas une communauté européenne de défense, au moment décisif, ils seront démunis. 

Franziska Brantner: Je suis plutôt fière d’avoir anticipé ce débat dans un pays comme l’Allemagne. À l’époque, tout le monde me disait : « mais tu es anti-transatlantique » ; alors que j’expliquais déjà que tout cela n’a rien à voir avec les États-Unis – il s’agit de notre responsabilité. Maintenant, c’est devenu plus ou moins une évidence que les Américains ne seront pas là pour toujours pour nous. La tâche pour l’Europe est donc d’assumer et d’assurer sa sécurité et sa défense, aussi militaire.  

Ça veut dire quoi « défendre l’Europe » pour les écologistes ? 

Franziska Brantner: C’est défendre la paix et la liberté. Ça signifie que la défense de l’Europe ne peut être qu’européenne. Je remarque qu’une grande partie des adhérents du Parti Vert allemand (ils sont à ce jour plus de 180 000) ont beaucoup moins de doutes que les cadres du parti quant à la nécessité d’une capacité militaire.  

C’est surprenant quand même pour des partis, surtout en Allemagne, qui se sont construits dans les années 70, entre autres, autour du pacifisme et de la non-violence. 

Franziska Brantner: Il y a une profonde différence entre pacifisme et non-violence. Bien sûr qu’il faut promouvoir une éducation non-violente, une société non-violente. Mais ce n’est pas le pacifisme. Chez nous, c’est Joschka Fischer [ministre des Affaires étrangères d’Allemagne entre 1998 et 2005] qui a commencé cette révolution culturelle à l’époque du Kosovo. Mais avec l’Ukraine, ça a complètement basculé. Aujourd’hui, je me retrouve au centre de gravité du parti, parce que certains Verts surenchérissent tellement qu’il faut leur rappeler que les armes ne sont pas nécessairement la seule ni la meilleure réponse. 

C’est défendre la paix et la liberté. Ça signifie que la défense de l’Europe ne peut être qu’européenne.

Rui Tavares: On aurait dû avoir le débat sur l’armée européenne après s’être assurés qu’on aurait bien une démocratie européenne, avec tous les instruments de fiscalisation et un Parlement qui peut contrôler cette armée. Mais le problème, c’est que la guerre en Ukraine a installé l’urgence et renversé les priorités. Je le ressens aussi dans mon électorat – quand je suggère d’y aller prudemment, ils répondent que Poutine est à nos portes et que Trump pourrait menacer d’annexer les Açores, où il y a déjà une base américaine, comme il a menacé le Groenland. Cette question a même été posée au premier ministre, qui a répondu : « Le mieux, c’est qu’on n’en parle pas. » 

Ainsi, face à ceux qui veulent accélérer la militarisation de l’Europe, il faut rappeler que l’Europe n’est pas encore prête, car il lui manque les instruments de contrôle et de financement. 

Franziska Brantner: Parmi les verts allemands, il y a un débat sur ces questions de financement au niveau européen. Il y en a qui insistent sur cette interdiction des dépenses militaires par les traités. Même si les moyens étaient là, ils préfèrent défendre d’abord le cadre institutionnel, plutôt que de trouver des façons de faire avancer à la fois le financement et le contrôle démocratique. C’est un problème, car quand on aura trouvé la voie, il vaudrait mieux que tout cela reste sous le contrôle d’un Parlement. 

Comment doit s’articuler la défense européenne dans les équilibres géopolitiques actuels ? Quid de « l’alliance des puissances moyennes » à la Carney, de l’architecture de sécurité globale, de l’offre de parapluie nucléaire français ? 

Franziska Brantner: Il nous faut un budget européen pour la défense commune, avec des objectifs communs. Je préférerais que cela se fasse au sein des institutions, mais si pour des raisons de légalité ou de majorité c’est impossible, alors imaginons des institutions ad hoc. Quant aux alliances, il me paraît absolument nécessaire d’y intégrer le Royaume-Uni, et peut-être la Norvège. Ensuite, la Turquie ou le Canada ont aussi un rôle à jouer, mais à une échelle plus large. 

Pour le nucléaire, soyons lucides : ni a fortiori les États-Unis d’aujourd’hui, ni la France ni la Grande-Bretagne n’accepteront le partage des responsabilités, au sens de partager le pouvoir du « bouton rouge ». Néanmoins, nous devons parler entre Européens, avec la France et la Grande-Bretagne, au sujet d’une doctrine nucléaire européenne. En contrepartie, nous devrons évidemment financer davantage le conventionnel. 

Et la contrepartie politique ? La garantie nucléaire induit une forme de leadership stratégique que les partenaires de la France ne sont peut-être pas prêts à accepter et que la France n’est peut-être pas prête à assumer ? 

Franziska Brantner: C’est possible, mais on n’a pas le choix. La menace de Poutine est réelle et le recul de Trump aussi. Je souhaiterais tellement que nous vivions dans un monde meilleur, mais ce n’est pas ainsi. Si on n’y arrive pas en Europe, il y a déjà des conservateurs allemands qui proposent une force de frappe allemande – je pense que c’est une très mauvaise idée, même si l’Allemagne en aurait les capacités. D’une part, cela violerait notre constitution, et de l’autre, les traités internationaux. 

Rui Tavares: Sur la garantie nucléaire française, la vitesse du débat est étonnante. Ces choses, normalement, avancent à une lenteur glaciale, mais là on l’envisage concrètement. Selon moi, il faudrait faire quelque chose de très simple, mais très visible : inscrire l’emploi du nucléaire français dans le cadre de l’article 47 du traité, qui parle de venir en aide à l’État membre menacé avec « toutes les ressources » – donc l’arsenal nucléaire aussi. 

Quant à cette alliance des puissances moyennes, ça me chagrine toujours un peu qu’on s’arrête au Canada. Et le Brésil, le Mexique, les autres pays ? Voilà des partenaires stratégiques. 

Franziska Brantner: Je crois qu’on les aborde surtout par les intérêts économiques et politiques. 

Rui Tavares: C’est vrai, mais c’est aussi que les Européens négligent ce que ces pays-là disent sur l’état du monde, sur le développement, sur les réformes de l’ONU. Ils ne veulent pas écouter ce que le Brésil aurait à dire aussi sur les questions de la mémoire de l’esclavage, par exemple. Ces pays veulent parler de ça aussi. Si l’Europe veut contrer les puissances autoritaires en ralliant ces puissances moyennes peu attachées au système international fondé sur l’ONU et les règles partagées, nous devons nous mettre à leur écoute – car ces partenaires potentiels en ont marre de l’arrogance européenne. C’est pour ça que nous avons échoué à les engager pleinement dans le soutien à l’Ukraine. L’Europe doit sortir de ses évidences et de sa zone de confort. 

Franziska Brantner: Je crois qu’il y a quand même une différence à faire entre les liens économiques, voire politiques et stratégiques, et les liens de défense. Je suis tout à fait d’accord avec toi sur les premiers, mais pour la défense européenne, je suis moins convaincue. 

Rui Tavares: Pourtant, si tu prends l’exemple de la sécurité contre les narcotrafics dans l’Atlantique du Sud, il faudra parler avec les Sud-Américains. 

Outre les alliances, la « défense de l’Europe en Européens » passe par les questions industrielles. Un budget militaire, soit, mais pour quoi faire ? 

Rui Tavares: Quand les Américains ont construit leur puissance militaire au lendemain de la guerre, ils ont fait des investissements publics colossaux dans la recherche, à travers le MIT et des programmes spécifiques. On sait tous que l’Internet est directement issu de ce genre de recherche. Je trouve inquiétant que la révolution de l’intelligence artificielle, fondamentale dans le domaine de la défense, soit complètement dominée, commandée et organisée par le privé – sans aucune participation publique. Là, l’Europe aurait une énorme opportunité historique de faire des investissements publics massifs, surtout dans la recherche, la science et la technologie, avec des objectifs ambitieux. 

Si on montre que la recherche militaire produit des avancées civiles, on peut sortir de ce piège très efficace qui force les électorats à choisir entre avoir les moyens d’un modèle social et avoir les moyens de le défendre.

Franziska Brantner: En Europe, c’est l’Ukraine qui fait ça. Ce sont les plus créatifs et innovants. Plus encore que les États-Unis. 

À ce propos, comment répondre à la question piège qui dénonce le sacrifice des dépenses sociales sur l’autel des dépenses militaires ? 

Franziska Brantner:  D’abord, il nous faut un marché de la défense unique et intégré, avec des économies d’échelle à la clé et une capacité de créer ainsi notre souveraineté technologique, par exemple l’IA. Ceci doit être fait d’une manière à générer des gains technologiques et économiques, des « dividendes de la défense » pour la productivité et la souveraineté industrielles européennes.  

Mais il est évident qu’on ne peut financer longtemps la défense qu’à travers la dette. Dans le budget allemand, il y a déjà aujourd’hui 80 milliards d’euros annuels de services de la dette. On s’attend à 40 milliards de dettes supplémentaires rien que pour la défense. Pour les plus jeunes générations, c’est intenable. Et il y a aussi le risque d’une dette non soutenable qui peut nous coûter très cher, au sens économique et ensuite social. Donc à un moment, soit on augmente les ressources, soit il faut couper quelque part.  

Il faut aussi devenir plus efficace économiquement. Si la productivité ne progresse plus, ça va nécessairement peser sur le reste du budget. On a eu de la chance, pendant 80 ans, mais les « dividendes de la paix » sont finis. 

En revanche, il y aura des dividendes des dépenses publiques pour la défense, dont il faut s’assurer qu’ils ne soient pas accaparés par les plus riches. Voilà une autre façon de reposer la question de la répartition public-privé. Et soyons lucides : Nous avons besoin d’une industrie de la défense européenne pour protéger notre paix et notre modèle de vie – ce qui à terme produira de nouveaux dividendes, d’une paix nouvelle et souveraine.  

Rui Tavares: Je suis en désaccord sur ça. Je ne voudrais pas revivre les débats de la crise de la zone euro, qui ont été vraiment très douloureux. Il y a une différence, peut-être culturelle, entre Nord et Sud, sur cette question de la dette. Quand on me dit qu’il faut investir dans les dépenses militaires pour répondre aux défis internationaux et qu’il n’est pas sérieux de ne pas prendre sur les dépenses sociales, je réponds que l’investissement sur la défense sans dette, c’est cela qui n’est pas sérieux. L’effort militaire a toujours coûté cher. Si on prend au sérieux une menace existentielle, on ne se tracasse pas à cause de la dette. D’autant que dans le passé, les investissements militaires ont tous été accompagnés ou suivis de près par de nouveaux investissements dans le social. 

Imaginons : il y a une crise du logement en Europe, une question très concrète pour beaucoup de gens. Si on développait de nouvelles technologies de construction, avec de nouveaux matériaux issus de la recherche, si on avait une agence européenne du logement, on pourrait encourager ces progrès. Et puisque les armées ont toujours été pleines d’ingénieurs, il peut y avoir là un bénéfice de l’investissement militaire – un dividende de guerre. 

Si on montre que la recherche militaire produit des avancées civiles, on peut sortir de ce piège très efficace qui force les électorats à choisir entre avoir les moyens d’un modèle social et avoir les moyens de le défendre. En ce sens, l’Allemagne a un rôle clé : il faut que les Allemands comprennent que l’Europe est prête à investir dans une dette sûre. Maintenant que la dette américaine n’est plus sûre, si les Européens font enfin le choix des fameux Eurobonds, il y aura des milliards d’euros prêts à être investis. 

Franziska Brantner: À condition que ce soient vraiment des investissements. Sinon ces ressources sont gaspillées, et ce sont les générations suivantes qui doivent financer. On a engagé près de 100 milliards de dettes pour la défense et 99% de cet argent est allé dans des trucs du passé. 

Il faut donc développer un complexe militaro-industriel européen, qui produise du futur, pas qui comble le passé ? 

Franziska Brantner: Voilà. Il faut rompre avec les inerties du passé. C’est le cas aussi dans notre modèle social en Allemagne : il y a des réformes qui améliorent la qualité des services et permettent en même temps des économies, et il faut les faire. On ne peut pas juste refuser l’économie, c’est impossible. Surtout avec une société qui vieillit. On ne peut pas se cacher derrière les faux-semblants. Je pense qu’il faut investir dans la défense, réformer le secteur économique et social.  

Comment est-ce qu’on prépare les populations aux réalités de la menace et aux réponses ? 

Rui Tavares: J’ai beaucoup aimé le rapport Niinistö, parce qu’il transmet aux Européens le savoir-faire des Nordiques sur ces questions de défense, qui reposent sur la société, les familles, les liens. On peut reproduire certaines choses comme les livrets sur la sécurité chez soi, la défense de proximité, qu’on peut imprimer et donner à tous les foyers européens. Ensuite, il faut tenir compte des réalités culturelles et sociales : s’il faut avoir deux semaines de vivres à la maison pour être préparé, au Portugal, le 10 du mois, quand le salaire est déjà dépensé, je suis sûr que le kit de sécurité ne tient pas. 

Il faut donc peut-être penser aussi à des réseaux de distribution. Mobiliser les mairies d’arrondissement. Inclure les pompiers. Ce sont autant d’opportunités de faire une Europe tangible. Quand on a des inondations, des incendies catastrophiques, les gens s’attendent à une réponse européenne. Avec ce type de kit européen de réponse aux guerres et aux catastrophes, qui pourrait être distribué, ce serait plus clair. 

Franziska Brantner: Je crains que ça ne marche pas, que sans l’urgence, les gens ne soient pas prêts. 

Au-delà de la base industrielle et technologique de défense européenne, quelle politique industrielle faut-il mettre en œuvre à l’échelle de l’UE ? 

Franziska Brantner: Je pense que la compétitivité européenne repose sur trois piliers. D’abord la résilience, avec la réduction de nos dépendances, surtout de la Chine et des États-Unis. Ensuite, l’innovation. Pas seulement dans la défense, mais aussi dans le numérique, la bioéconomie, la médecine. Et enfin, le troisième, c’est la question de la durabilité, pour répondre au changement climatique et aussi aux inégalités. Je veux qu’à la sortie des écoles, il y ait à nouveau une majorité de parents qui pensent que leurs enfants iront mieux qu’eux. Pour ça, il nous faut une éducation qui développe les compétences et les capacités d’innovation de nos jeunes. C’est une compétitivité au service du bien-être social, de la qualité de vie.  

Quelles priorités voyez-vous pour le futur de l’Europe? Selon vous, qu’est-ce qui fait aujourd’hui la cohésion européenne et l’actualité du projet européen ? 

Franziska Brantner: Je pense que la question à se poser est d’abord : « Pourquoi on veut la paix, la liberté et la démocratie ? » Pour nous, Européens, l’enjeu est de donner un sens à la liberté qui ne soit pas celui de JD Vance et un contenu à la paix qui ne soit pas celui de Poutine. C’est à nous de le faire, parce que c’est l’Europe qui porte ces valeurs-là. Et sans elles, le projet européen est vide. 

Rui Tavares: Je suis tout à fait d’accord, et je voudrais ajouter une notion : la qualité de vie. Quand on regarde l’Europe depuis l’extérieur, ce qui la caractérise, c’est une façon de vivre et des standards de qualité de vie. Notre idée de liberté se construit dans le droit universel à cette qualité de vie. Ça ne veut pas dire que tout le monde est riche, mais ça veut sûrement dire que personne n’est pauvre. En mettant cette notion au centre des politiques européennes, on voit rapidement que ça englobe tout : l’économique, le social, l’environnement, la culture, la sécurité, la défense. 

Ce qui m’inquiète, c’est que j’ai l’impression que la qualité de vie a cessé d’être un objectif de la politique. On entend des discours qui proposent de sacrifier tel ou tel service pour faire des économies. Mais je pense qu’épargner pour épargner, ça ne dit rien aux Européens. Personne ne veut être compétitif pour gagner une guerre économique dont on ne voit pas les bénéfices. En revanche, les Européens sont fiers et attachés à leur qualité de vie et pour de bonnes raisons. Si on réussit à les convaincre que les politiques proposées prennent cette qualité de vie au sérieux, je pense que les gens accepteront plus facilement les sacrifices.

This is a guest blog written by Ziada Kassimu, Executive Director at Green Conservers. Green Conservers (GC) is a youth-led movement working at the vital intersection of climate action and social equity. Recognizing that environmental degradation disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, GC advocates for structural climate justice while deploying real-world solutions. Their  work centers on two transformative pillars: advancing decentralized Renewable Energy to end fossil-fuel dependency, and pioneering Agroecology to replace extractive agricultural systems for resilient, biodiverse, and community-governed food systems.

The sun had barely risen over the dusty plains when women in Diloda began their daily journeys. Some walked long distances in search of water. Others headed to small farms that once provided food for their families. A few sat outside their homes, reflecting on a life that looked very different before the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project arrived in their communities.

For many women, land was more than a piece of property. From the soil came maize, beans, sunflowers, and vegetables that fed families and generated income. The land paid school fees, covered medical expenses, and offered hope during difficult seasons. Today, many women say that hope has become increasingly difficult to find.

During community discussions, women described how the acquisition of land for the EACOP project disrupted livelihoods that had sustained families for generations. While compensation and livelihood restoration programs were presented as solutions, many community members believe these initiatives have fallen short of restoring what was lost. “We were told our lives would improve,” one woman explained. “Instead, we are struggling to rebuild what we already had.” Her words hung in the air like a cloud before a storm.

 Ziada Kassimu Executive Director at Green Conservers and Savio Carvalho (Managing Director at 350.org) Credit: Ziadah

Across affected communities, women continue to carry the heaviest burden. As primary caregivers, food producers, and managers of household welfare, they often absorb the impacts of economic disruption first and most intensely. The consequences stretch far beyond income.

When productive farmland is lost, women must work harder to feed their families. Household expenses rise while economic opportunities shrink. Food security becomes uncertain. Children become vulnerable. The entire social fabric of a community begins to strain.

In Diloda, women also spoke about another challenge that rarely appears in project reports: the growing tensions between farmers and pastoralists. Before the project, communities already faced occasional disputes over land and natural resources. However, as available land becomes increasingly limited, many residents believe tensions have intensified. The result is a growing atmosphere of uncertainty.

Communities that once shared resources are now competing for shrinking spaces. Women, often responsible for maintaining household stability, find themselves navigating conflicts they neither created nor control.

Meanwhile, many of the development promises associated with EACOP remain largely invisible to residents. Community members recall hearing about improved roads, better schools, healthcare facilities, and economic opportunities. These promises generated excitement and optimism.

Yet years later, many residents still travel on poor roads that become difficult to navigate during rainy seasons.Children continue to face challenges accessing education. Families still struggle to obtain clean and safe water. The promised dispensaries and social services remain absent from daily life.

For women carrying water containers under the scorching sun, development is not measured by project announcements or corporate presentations. It is measured by whether water flows from a nearby tap. It is measured by whether a sick child can receive treatment at a local health facility. It is measured by whether a mother can harvest enough food to feed her family. It is measured by whether livelihoods are truly restored. It is measured by energy access and affordability. 

Women in Diloda walking to the market: Credit: Ziadah

Community members repeatedly raised concerns about the effectiveness of livelihood restoration programs. While training and support activities have been implemented in some areas, many women argue that these interventions have not fully replaced the stability and independence that their land once provided. A small business cannot always replace fertile farmland. A short-term training cannot easily restore generations of agricultural knowledge and economic security. And a promise cannot fill an empty plate.

The story unfolding in communities affected by EACOP is not only about infrastructure or energy development. It is about people. It is about women whose daily lives have been transformed by decisions made far from their villages. It is about mothers searching for ways to support their children. It is about communities asking whether development can truly be called development when those most affected feel left behind.

As global conversations continue about energy, climate, and economic growth, the voices of women from Diloda offer an important reminder. Development should never be measured solely in kilometers of pipeline constructed or profits generated. It should be measured in stronger livelihoods, improved well-being, energy access, social harmony, and opportunities created for future generations. Until women can confidently say their lives are better than before, the question remains: Who truly benefits from development, and who is left carrying its costs? For the women of Diloda, the answer is written not in project reports but in the realities they face every day.

The post The Women Left Behind appeared first on 350.

Heatwave insomnia Channel News brendan 7th July 2026 Teaser Media

Hoo boy. Many of us slogged through a July 4 more vigil - "act of purposeful wakefulness" - than celebration as hostages of a dark timeline wherein history's smallest, weakest political "leader" and his racist cabal screech about "godless communists," one-party rule and forced sterilization of brown people who will "suicide your civilization" while masked Nazis march in the streets. Welcome to "exceptionalism," stripped of its pieties. The "danger of this age," notes one sage, "isn't merely organized hate (but) indifference to it."

In the summer of 1776, a few dozen brave men with much to lose who had "watched power gather dangerously into one man’s hands" came together in Philadelphia to pledge "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to stop it. Concluding a long list of grievances against King George in their Declaration of Independence, they issued their ultimate moral and legal justification for the American colonies to sever ties with Great Britain: "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Today, in his new show, Larry David echoes them.

On this Fourth of July, wrote John Pavlovitz, "Most of us were pulled between the despair of what this nation has become (or always has been) and the hope of what we might still be," leaving us "not knowing quite where to stand." We are "told today by the men who would humiliate us," he adds, "that America was founded in a spirit of innocence, that its leaders never did anything wrong, and that patriotism means insisting on our own blamelessness and assigning all evil to others" - this, in a country founded in genocide that blithely went on to institutionalize slavery and racism, then took to rampaging imperialism.

Despite the right's longtime myths about American "exceptionalism," for decades the arc of our political history has bent toward liberalism and the egalitarian ideals of its founding. No more. The last ten years, and especially the last two, have seen us hurtling backwards, obviously in large part due to the toxic rise of Trump, who "didn't invent America’s oldest prejudices (but) exploited them, legitimized them, rewarded them (and) transformed grievance into political identity." Writes Congressional candidate Fred Wellman, "The level of racism and bigotry this pathetic small man spits out daily could fill an algae-filled pool."

Last week saw some of what it's wrought. Death by firing squad - really - is on the rise: Idaho just became the first state to adopt it as its primary method of state murder, which can inflict "prolonged and agonising death," and it's the seventh state to include it in grisly execution rosters. SCOTUS hacks just stripped legal protections from over half a million Haitians and almost as many Syrians, prompting hateful vampire Megyn Kelly to spew, "Get out. Go home. Go back to fucking Haiti. We know our country’s better than yours (because) we filled it with our work ethic and culture and values. You being here only dilutes it for us."

MAGA ghouls emitted more vicious racist bilge after SCOTUS barely struck down Trump's "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL" move to strip birthright citizenship from U.S-born kids of non-citizens despite a 14th Amendment clearly stating anyone born here, even with dark skin, is a citizen. It was widely deemed a win for the rule of law, but it was also "one step away" from a scary "birthright precipice" that saw four judges construct 100 pages of legal arguments "to write immigrants’ children out of the Constitution and still call it jurisprudence." The ruling was "very nice," wrote Jonathan Last, like "it's nice when a person walking past you doesn't pull out a gun and shoot you...(The) majority followed the Constitution. Yay."

Still, the right freaked out, raving it was "a betrayal of the republic (that) cheapens the sacred value of American citizenship." Sample rants: "We are supposed to be a country, not an orphanage," "Any woman illegal alien who is capable of having a child needs to be rounded up and ejected," the "obvious lesson" of traitor Amy Barrett upholding "birth tourism of China's communist party" is to stop nominating female justices, "Mass deportations. Round every illegal up. Don’t pull back when the lesbian activists start screeching about it," and, "If you see a pregnant foreigner, contact ICE immediately - the future of our country depends on it.”

They want to ban foreign-born pregnant women, ban all female foreigners, do pregnancy screenings for those women, "require sterilization of all foreign visitors before entry," dissolve the Union. Todd Blanche will fight (imaginary) "birth tourism." J.D. Vance says his faith is why "we don't like low-wage foreigners stealing" jobs: "We want normal Americans to be able to live a dignified life, and I think that's a very Christian concept." Texas Rep.Troy Nehls wants a 10-year moratorium on immigration - "We gotta put a big bedsheet over the Statue of Liberty," maybe with cut-out eye holes and pointy hat? - "because we’re not letting anybody in."

As usual, a not-at-all-unhinged Stephen Miller won the Mein Kampf Award by arguing the ruling “requires you to suicide your civilization.” After proposing the case serve as a litmus test for all future judges, he warned - under a Fox chyron blaring “Birth Tourism Is A Ticking Bomb” - that it offers "a direct line into American cash (for) the rest of that child’s life (as mothers) send welfare checks back home to support a whole family." "They can just come into the country, have a baby in a hospital, paid for by you and me, and then that baby is automatically a citizen?" he howled. "And that baby can sit on a jury when he turns 18, and sit in judgment of...me?“

That baby won't be the only one. In The Empire Loses the Ball, a terrific piece about the World Cup, Troy Nahumko describes colonial powers who've "spent centuries confusing dominance with superiority," Africa's "arrival" this year as a force to be reckoned with, and soccer's contempt for and inexorable repudiation of racial hierarchy. "There comes a time when the people who used to draw the maps no longer get to decide what the world looks like," he writes. "The World Cup has become that moment." And Stephen Miller, "a man who has made the question of human belonging his life’s organizing principle," has been or will be made to confront it.

As part of his racist rant, Miller denigrated people "from third world nations (that) on their own would have never invented the wheel, let alone modern technology, medicine, air travel." Hold my beer, says Nahumko: The wheel emerged in Mesopotamia, now Iraq, writing in Sumer and Egypt, algebra in ninth-century Uzbekistan, agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, the "numerical system Miller uses to count the families he splits up and deports" in India. "That is the birthright Miller calls worthless," he writes. "On the pitches where he would have their descendants excluded, (they) are eliminating European football powers in front of the watching world."

The beautiful game "rolled downhill" from "a damp little island" through oil towns in Algeria, fishing villages in Senegal, barrios, favelas, refugee camps "where the goalposts are flip-flops." "We come from the red earth," said Paraguay’s coach after they beat Germany. "We learned to play football barefoot." Europe long bragged about a diversity that "won trophies for France," but proved "less popular in Dakar than in Paris." This year, nine of ten "shithole countries" - Morocco, South Africa, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cape Verde, Egypt, DRC, Algeria - advanced. The final will be in New Jersey, "across the river from where millions of immigrants arrived and received the protection of an amendment Stephen Miller would now like to declare worthless."

Cockroach-like, Miller has also declared "divine providence“ the reign of a moronic narcissist con man who, says a report from House Democrats, hijacked and twisted a landmark 250th anniversary into ”a hotbed of corruption and self-enrichment,“ packed with pay-to-play schemes through a DOGE-run, wire-fraud-committing shadow corporation, all ”in service of the President’s ego, political ideology and pet projects.“ The resulting grift and incompetence is now everywhere, from the trashed “Reflecting Lakes” with “criminally-made algae” to the post-rapture-like State Fair where Fox bobbleheads yammered about non-existent “crowds,” there were no chairs, shade or AC in the steamy heat, but if desperate you could find relief in the baptism pool.

Meanwhile, the "festivities" lurched on. Speaking at Mt. Rushmore, amidst millions going hungry, losing health care or voting for Democrat Socialists in primaries, Trump back-tracked to the 1950s and blamed it all on "godless communists" who are "finally making their move," also "illegal immigrants, criminals and everybody that doesn’t want to work,“ who he'll "send into exile." Saturday, in a still-broiling D.C, officials cancelled the parade due to "heat," aka rumors nobody would show, but Patriot Front Nazis turned up to march, wave Confederate flags and chant "Reclaim America," evidently for racist morons with socks on their patriotic faces in 100-degree temps.

That night, back at the Great American Shitshow on the Mall, looming thunderstorms prompted chaos and a mass evacuation; it was close to midnight by the time limp crowds snaked again through security lines and Trump ranted, “You can be a communist or a patriot - you cannot be both.” He bragged he’s taking America’s “Golden Age” to “new levels” and he’d insisted the show go on “so it was even more spectacular (than) it would have been as normalized.” Then they set off 850,000 fireworks - experts had urged viewers wear N95 masks - which made so much smoke it was all people could see. Some said it looked like war footage or the,end of the world; Trump dozed off.

Sunday morning, D.C. officials issued a Code Red Air Quality Alert for the most polluted air of any major city on the planet; some observers wondered if Trump had hired his pool guy for the fireworks. The pool itself, thick with algae and guarded by soldiers, fencing, signs and security cameras, was now also littered with menacing black husks of spent fireworks. "What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?" asked Frederick Douglass, who bared the hypocrisies of this nation's founding. "To him, your celebration is a sham; your national greatness, swelling vanity...your prayers and hymns, mere bombast, (a) thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages."

"Stand out - someone has to," historian Timothy Snyder urges today. "Whenever you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken." For the Fourth of July, who better than New York City's Zohran Mamdani to take on that task, to sit at George Washington's desk among new Americans, "take measure of who we are as a nation," see "an opportunity to begin anew," and join with the city's immigrants, peasants, serfs, those "treated as less than, for whom power was something that someone else had " - to come together in "the work of rendering America, year after year, a little more faithful to its founding ideals." The core of our exceptionalism: Nothing is fixed in its place." Our "special power": "To determine what America means." For the Black woman in this image, for all of us: Not this, please.

A lone tense Black woman rides the D.C. subway surrounded by masked Nazis in an "image that indicts an era."Photo by Cheney Orr/REUTERS/TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Gareth Thompson reviews a nail-biting history of environmentalist direct action

The post Fires in the Night – review appeared first on Red Pepper.

Popularitas Spaceman tidak hanya didukung oleh tampilannya yang menarik, tetapi juga karena permainan ini memberikan pengalaman interaktif yang berbeda dibandingkan permainan digital lainnya. Hal tersebut menjadikan Spaceman sebagai salah satu pilihan hiburan yang banyak dibicarakan oleh berbagai kalangan.

Terbang Tinggi Bersama Spaceman Raih Kemenangan Melalui Strategi

Keberhasilan dalam bermain Spaceman bukan hanya dipengaruhi oleh keberuntungan semata. Pemahaman terhadap mekanisme permainan menjadi faktor penting yang dapat membantu pemain mengambil keputusan secara lebih rasional.

Salah satu pendekatan yang banyak diterapkan adalah menentukan target sejak awal sebelum permainan dimulai. Dengan memiliki batas kemenangan maupun batas risiko, pemain dapat menjaga konsistensi tanpa mudah terbawa emosi ketika permainan berlangsung.

Selain itu, pengelolaan modal juga memiliki peran yang sangat penting. Mengatur nominal permainan sesuai kemampuan akan membantu menjaga keseimbangan sehingga pengalaman bermain tetap terasa nyaman. Pendekatan ini sering menjadi rekomendasi dari pemain berpengalaman karena mampu mengurangi keputusan impulsif yang berpotensi meningkatkan risiko.

Pentingnya Memahami Pola Permainan

Setiap permainan digital memiliki karakteristik tersendiri, termasuk Spaceman. Oleh sebab itu, memahami pola permainan menjadi langkah yang bijak sebelum mulai bermain secara aktif.

Banyak pemain meluangkan waktu untuk mengamati ritme permainan terlebih dahulu. Walaupun hasil setiap putaran bersifat independen dan tidak dapat dipastikan, proses observasi dapat membantu pemain lebih memahami dinamika permainan sehingga keputusan yang diambil terasa lebih terukur.

Pendekatan analitis seperti ini menunjukkan bahwa pengalaman dan pemahaman terhadap mekanisme permainan memiliki nilai yang tidak kalah penting dibandingkan sekadar mengejar hasil instan.

Pengalaman Bermain yang Bertanggung Jawab

pengalaman bermain yang positif selalu didukung oleh pengambilan keputusan yang bertanggung jawab. Menentukan batas waktu bermain, mengelola anggaran, serta memahami aturan permainan merupakan bagian dari praktik yang lebih bijaksana.

Pemain yang memiliki disiplin umumnya lebih mampu menikmati setiap sesi permainan tanpa tekanan berlebihan. Dengan demikian, aktivitas bermain tetap menjadi bentuk hiburan digital yang menyenangkan sekaligus terkendali.

Selain itu, memilih platform yang memiliki sistem keamanan yang baik, layanan pelanggan responsif, serta informasi permainan yang transparan juga menjadi aspek penting dalam menciptakan pengalaman pengguna yang lebih terpercaya.

Kesimpulan

Tema “Terbang Tinggi Bersama Spaceman Raih Kemenangan” menggambarkan semangat untuk mencapai hasil terbaik melalui persiapan, strategi, dan pengambilan keputusan yang tepat. Memahami mekanisme permainan, menerapkan pengelolaan modal yang disiplin, serta bermain secara bertanggung jawab merupakan fondasi penting dalam memperoleh pengalaman bermain yang lebih optimal.

As the foundations of the transatlantic alliance strain under the weight of the US’s growing unilateralism, Europe is being forced to imagine a defence of its own. But what would that defence look like – and what would it cost, financially and politically? Green leaders Franziska Brantner and Rui Tavares talk to Edouard Gaudot about how Europe can protect itself without losing sight of why it’s worth protecting.

Edouard Gaudot: Amid heightened geopolitical tension and the growing prevalence of military conflict, can you briefly describe the state of Europe and the world today? 

Rui Tavares: I’d say there’s a general crisis of imagination. Usually, imagination comes after war. But today, the challenge is finding imagination before conflict. 

Franziska Brantner: For me, it’s confusion and a lack of courage from Europeans, and from the Americans and the rest of the world, it’s the return of madness and “might makes right.” 

Rui Tavares: Exactly. There’s a form of madness that comes with this absence of imagination, as if we’re living in a parallel reality. 

What does green leadership look like in a world plunged into chaos and conflict? 

Rui Tavares: We need to educate people but stay calm at the same time. We must avoid scaring them and instead prepare them for political debates and tough choices. Public opinion matures: 10 years ago, it would have been impossible to talk realistically about a European defence community. Now, with Trump, everyone can see that if the Europeans don’t create one, they’ll be defenceless at the decisive moment. 

Franziska Brantner: I’m rather proud to have seen this debate taking shape in a country like Germany. Previously, everyone would say to me, “You’re just an anti-Atlanticist,” even as I explained that my emphasis on defence autonomy had nothing to do with the United States but was about our responsibility. Now, it’s become very clear that the Americans won’t always be there for us. The task for Europe, then, is to step up and take responsibility for its own defence and security.  

For the Greens, defending Europe means safeguarding peace and freedom. Therefore, Europe’s defence can only be European. I note that many German Green party members (of whom there are over 180,000 today) have far fewer reservations than the party’s leaders do about the need for a stronger military capability.  

That’s surprising for a party that was founded in the 1970s on, among other things, pacifism and non-violence. 

Franziska Brantner: There’s a profound difference between pacifism and non-violence. Of course, we must promote non-violent education and a non-violent society, but that isn’t pacifism. In our party, it was Joschka Fischer [German foreign minister from 1998 to 2005] who started this cultural shift at the time of the Kosovo conflict. But with Ukraine, everything changed. Today I find myself in the party’s centre, because some Greens have gone so far that they need reminding that weapons are not necessarily the only answer, nor the best. 

For the Greens, defending Europe means safeguarding peace and freedom. Therefore, Europe’s defence can only be European.

Rui Tavares: Ideally, we would be having this debate on a European army after making sure that we really have a European democracy, with full tax-raising powers and a parliament that could oversee this army. But the war in Ukraine has brought urgency and upended priorities. I sense it in my voters [in Portugal], too: when I suggest moving cautiously, they reply that Putin is at the gates and that Trump could threaten to annex the Azores – where there is already an American base – just as he threatened Greenland. This question was even put to the prime minister, whose answer was: “It’s best we don’t talk about it.” 

So, to those who want to accelerate Europe’s militarisation, we must point out that Europe is not yet ready because it lacks the mechanisms for oversight and funding. 

Franziska Brantner: Among German Greens, there’s a debate about funding at the European level. Some insist that European treaties prohibit military spending. And even if the resources were there, they would rather defend the institutional framework than find ways to move ahead on funding and democratic oversight. This is a problem, because once we find the path forward, it would be better if all this remained under parliamentary oversight. 

What about the “alliance of middle powers” proposed by Mark Carney, the global security architecture, and the French nuclear umbrella? How should European defence fit into the current geopolitical landscape?  

Franziska Brantner: We need a European budget for common defence, with common goals. I’d rather this were created within the institutions, but if it’s impossible for reasons of legality or majority, let’s devise ad hoc institutions. As for alliances, it’s absolutely essential to include the United Kingdom, and maybe Norway. Turkey and Canada also have roles to play, but on a broader level. 

When it comes to nuclear weapons, let’s be clear-eyed: neither the United States – especially today – nor France nor the United Kingdom will agree to sharing responsibility, in the sense of sharing the power to press the “red button”. That said, Europeans must talk to each other, to France and the United Kingdom, about a European nuclear doctrine. In return, we will obviously have to increase funding for conventional weapons. 

A nuclear guarantee would entail a sort of strategic leadership from France that its partners may not be willing to allow, and that Paris may not be willing to accept.  

Franziska Brantner: That’s possible, but we don’t have a choice. Putin’s threat is real, and so is Trump’s retreat. I really wish we lived in a better world, but we don’t. If Europe can’t do it, there are already German conservatives proposing a German nuclear deterrent. I think this is a very bad idea, even if Germany has the capability. It would violate both our constitution and international treaties. 

Rui Tavares: On the French nuclear guarantee, the speed of the debate is astonishing. These things usually move forward at a glacial pace, but this is now actually being considered. I think we need to do something very simple, but very visible: expand French nuclear doctrine to include Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union. It talks about coming to the aid of threatened member states with all available resources. That would mean nuclear weapons, too. 

As for this alliance of middle powers, it always bothers me a bit that we stop at Canada. What about Brazil, Mexico, and other countries? There’s some strategic partners for you. 

Franziska Brantner: I think that our approach to them is primarily driven by economic and political interests. 

Rui Tavares: True, but Europeans also ignore what these countries say about the state of the world, about development and UN reforms. They don’t want to listen to what Brazil might also have to say about the remembrance of slavery, for example. If Europe wants to counter authoritarian powers by courting middle powers that are not particularly invested in the UN-led rules-based international order, we need to listen to them. These potential partners are fed up with European arrogance, and that’s why we failed to secure their full backing for Ukraine. Europe must challenge its assumptions and get out of its comfort zone. 

Franziska Brantner: I still think there’s a distinction to be made between economic ties – political and strategic ties even – and defence ties. I completely agree with you on the first three, but when it comes to European defence, I’m less convinced. 

Rui Tavares: But to fight drug trafficking in the South Atlantic, for example, you’ll have to speak to the South Americans. 

Alliances aside, a European defence of Europe means grappling with questions of industrial policy. A military budget is all well and good, but what for? 

Rui Tavares: When the Americans built up their military power after the [Second World] War, they made colossal public investments in research through the likes of MIT and special programmes. As we all know, the Internet was a direct result of this type of research. So I find it worrying that the revolution in artificial intelligence, fundamental in the realm of defence, is completely driven, shaped, and dominated by the private sector, with no public involvement. Here, Europe has an enormous historic opportunity to make massive public investments – especially in research, science, and technology – with ambitious goals. 

If we show that military research produces civilian advances, we can escape this pernicious trap that forces voters to choose between funding a welfare state and funding its defence.

Franziska Brantner: In Europe, it’s the Ukrainians who are doing this. They are the most creative and innovative. Even more so than the Americans. 

And how should we respond to those who claim social spending is being sacrificed on the altar of military expenditure? 

Franziska Brantner:  First of all, we need a single, integrated defence market with economies of scale and the capacity to develop our own technological sovereignty, in AI for example. This must be done in a way that delivers technological and economic benefits – “defence dividends” for European industrial productivity and sovereignty.  

But it’s obvious that in the long run we can’t fund defence through borrowing. Germany already spends 80 billion euros a year on servicing debt. An extra 40 billion euros of debt is expected to be added just for defence. For younger generations, it’s unsustainable. And there’s also the risk that unsustainable borrowing could cost us dearly, both economically and socially. So at some point, we must either increase resources or make cuts somewhere.  

We also have to become more economically efficient. If productivity stops growing, it will put more pressure on the budget. We got lucky for 80 years, but the peace dividend is gone. 

That said, there will be dividends from public spending on defence, though we’ll have to make sure that they’re not pocketed by the richest. That’s another way of asking how we draw the line between public and private.  

Let’s be clear about this: we need a European defence industry to protect our peace and our way of life – and in the long run, this will pay fresh dividends from a new and sovereign peace.  

Rui Tavares: This is where I disagree with you. I don’t want to reopen arguments from the Eurozone crisis, which was extremely painful. But there’s a difference, perhaps cultural, between north and south on the question of debt. When I’m told that we must invest in defence spending to meet global challenges and that doing so without cutting social spending is unrealistic, my response is that investing in defence without borrowing is what’s unrealistic. Military investment has always been expensive. If we take an existential threat seriously, we don’t fret about debt. Especially given that, in the past, military investment has always been accompanied or followed by new social investment. 

Just take into account the fact that there’s a housing crisis in Europe, an issue that’s very real for many people. If we developed construction technologies, with new materials invented through research and development, and if we had a European housing agency, we could build on this progress. And since armies have always been full of engineers, this might be another benefit of military spending – a war dividend. 

If we show that military research produces civilian advances, we can escape this pernicious trap that forces voters to choose between funding a welfare state and funding its defence. This is where Germany has a key role to play: Germans must understand that Europe is willing to invest in safe debt. Now that American debt is no longer safe, if Europeans were to finally opt for the famous Eurobonds, there would be billions of euros ready to invest. 

Franziska Brantner: So long as these are really investments. Otherwise, they’re a waste of resources, and future generations will have to pay for them. We’ve taken on almost 100 billion euros in defence debt, and 99 per cent of this money has gone into stuff that’s obsolete. 

So, we need to develop a European military-industrial complex, one that builds for the future, not the past. 

Franziska Brantner: Exactly. We must break free from past inertias. It’s also the case for our welfare state in Germany: there are reforms that will improve the quality of services while also making savings, and they have to be implemented. We can’t just refuse to make savings. It’s impossible, especially with an ageing society. We can’t hide behind false pretexts. I think we have to invest in defence while also reforming the economy and public services.  

How do we prepare people for the reality of the security threats facing Europe and the responses they require? 

Rui Tavares: I loved the Niinistö report [drawn up by Sauli Niinistö, former president of Finland and special adviser to the president of the European Commission] because it shares with the rest of Europe Nordic know-how on defence, which is based around society, families, and bonds. Some materials – like booklets on preparedness and local defence – can be reproduced, printed, and distributed to all European households. But it’s important to take into account cultural and social realities: you’re supposed to have two weeks’ supplies in the house to be prepared, but in Portugal, where wages are often spent by the 10th of the month, I’m sure the survival kit won’t last. 

So, we should perhaps think about distribution networks, mobilise local councils, and even involve the fire service. These are also opportunities to make Europe tangible. When devastating fires or floods break out, people expect a European response. With a European war and disaster survival kit that could be distributed to citizens, Europe’s role in helping people would be clearer to see. 

Franziska Brantner: I fear that it won’t work – that without a sense of urgency, people won’t be ready. 

Besides the European defence technological and industrial base, what industrial policy should be implemented at the EU level? 

Franziska Brantner: I believe European competitiveness rests on three pillars. First, resilience, which requires a reduction in our dependencies, especially on China and the United States. Next, innovation. Not just in defence, but in tech, medicine, the bioeconomy. And the third is sustainability, which is a necessary response to climate change and inequality.  

To succeed, we need education that develops our young people’s skills and capacity for innovation. It’s competitiveness in the service of social wellbeing and a better quality of life.  

Going forward, what objectives do you think Europe should prioritise? How can the European project gain more relevance and foster cohesion?  

Franziska Brantner: I think the question we must ask ourselves first is: “Why do we want peace, freedom, and democracy?” For us Europeans, the challenge is to give a meaning to freedom that isn’t JD Vance’s, and a substance to peace that isn’t Putin’s. It’s up to us to do this, because it’s Europe that upholds these values. And without them, the European project is hollow. 

Rui Tavares: I couldn’t agree more, and I’d like to add another idea: quality of life. Seen from the outside, Europe is defined by a way of life and a standard of living. Our notion of freedom is built on a universal right to this quality of life. It doesn’t mean that everybody is rich, but it does mean that nobody is poor. When we put this idea at the core of European policies, we soon see that it touches on everything: the economy, social policy, the environment, culture, security, and defence. 

What worries me is a sense that the quality of life has stopped being a goal of politics. We keep hearing calls to sacrifice this or that service to save money. But I think that saving for saving’s sake doesn’t appeal to Europeans. Nobody wants to stay competitive just to win an economic war they don’t see any benefits in. Europeans are proud of their quality of life and are deeply attached to it – and for good reason. If we manage to convince them that the policies that affect them take this quality of life seriously, I think people will be more willing to make sacrifices. 

In the northeastern corner of the department of Tolima, on the banks of the Magdalena River,  Colombia's main waterway, stretching more than 1,600 kilometers, lies a colonial municipality called...

“MAGA Inc.: A Guide to Trump’s World of Crypto Czars, Tech Titans and Prison Profiteers” – CorpWatch’s latest report – is a deep dive into the companies that have bankrolled…

A group of former United States government employees recently relaunched the defunct website Climate.gov as Climate.us, reviving the nation’s leading online platform for climate data after it was shuttered by the Trump administration in 2025.

Climate.us is now home to 15 years’ worth of climate-related news, visual reports, educational tools, and more that were once found at Climate.gov. The government website was shut down last June shortly after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on federal science research. Just four months prior, the Trump administration also fired hundreds of staff members at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including all of Climate.gov’s full-time staff. 

Over the past 12 months, a handful of those laid-off NOAA employees—led by Climate.us Managing Director Rebecca Lindsey, who served as Climate.gov’s head editor—have been rebuilding the website as an independent, nonprofit platform, tediously working through thousands of articles, links, and datasets. Among those efforts was the digital recovery of key resources such as the Fifth National Climate Assessment. The report was conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, whose website the Trump administration also took down last year.

“Trusted climate information should not disappear when politics change,” Lindsey writes in a press release. “Climate.us is building an independent, durable platform so people can continue to find the data and information they need to understand and talk about climate, and to teach, report, plan, prepare, and make informed decisions.” 

Launched in 2010, Climate.gov provided the public with easy-to-understand climate resources, including interactive maps, robust curriculum materials for educators, and a dashboard of global climate change indicators. The Climate.us team continues that mission with the support of volunteers and donations, including over 80 scientists who review its content and around US$280,000 from crowdsourcing.

“Climate.gov was never about—and Climate.us will never be about—telling Americans what to do about climate change,” Lindsey tells NPR. “The site will continue to be nonpartisan but will be focusing on the science and explaining science and showing people what the data show.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Tina Rolf, Unsplash

The post Climate.gov is Back With a New Name—From Employees Fired by Trump appeared first on Food Tank.

We talk with Survival International researcher Paul Renaut about the model of “fortress conservation,” that is driving forced evictions of Maasai people in Tanzania and how the UNESCO World Heritage status is amplifying that pressure.

More than 350 gas-powered generators could soon be operating just outside Philadelphia as part of Amazon’s proposed data center in Fairless Hills, Bucks County. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is hosting a public meeting about this proposal July 14. 

Over the July 4 holiday heatwave, existing data centers were instructed to run their gas generators on already polluted days, severely endangering local public health. We need our elected officials to prevent this from happening again.  

On hot summer days, when the region is already struggling with unhealthy air quality, those generators could add significant pollution to the air we breathe. Unless elected officials act now, this proposal could become a model for future data center development across southeastern Pennsylvania. 

Meeting growing electricity demand doesn’t mean building more fossil fuel infrastructure.

Data centers rely on massive amounts of electricity, and how we meet that demand will shape Pennsylvania’s energy future. Electricity costs are rising in Philadelphia, but expanded solar deployment has helped moderate those increases. 

Rather than responding to growing electricity demand with more fossil fuel development, city residents should demand that new data center development bring more solar onto our grid, making it easier for homes and commercial spaces to electrify while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. 

The City is already taking steps in this direction. A planned 1.5 megawatt solar farm near the Northeast Philadelphia Airport would give the City government a set electricity rate for 25 years, in addition to a 20-year contract with a solar farm in Clearfield County, PA, further locking in long-term electricity rates for municipal operations, but not for residents.  

This should be extended to include Pennsylvania households. Pennsylvanians are still waiting for the state legislature to pass House Bill 1155, which would allow households to benefit from community solar projects and see savings on their electric bills while supporting clean energy.   

We can’t allow data center growth to become an excuse for slowing the transition away from fossil fuels. 

Regardless of nearby industrial development, residents can take action on their own. Moving from gas cooking and heating appliances to electric devices will improve air quality inside your home and throughout the region.

In the middle of a polluted, summer heat wave, it doesn’t make much sense to heat a tank of water with an open flame so you can wash your hands. Tankless, electric water heaters that only heat the water you need could have a massive impact on the city’s public health while reducing energy bills.  

Nationwide, electricity consumption is increasing, yet new solar generation — not additional gas-fired power — is meeting much of that demand. Pennsylvania should follow that example.

Courts have affirmed that states have the right to set a standard for the air pollution that’s emitted by gas appliances in buildings. Transitioning away from your own household gas appliances is one way to remove gas pollution from your life. Contacting your elected officials to ask them to push back against the hundreds of gas generators proposed in the region is another. 

Click here to tell your state and local officials to support a three-year pause on data center development.

 In a world where sustainability and agricultural efficiency are more important than ever, we present an essential guide that will transform your vision of field production: the Sugarcane and Rice...

As the world's most bird-diverse country, Colombia is home to 1,969 recorded bird species. Many of these birds inhabit landscapes that overlap with nearly 1.5 million acres of oil palm plantations...