by Jake Johnson | Apr 3, 2026 | Article, Economy, Economy and Inequality, Military, Military Industrial Complex, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on April 03, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
President Donald Trump’s White House released a budget proposal on Friday that pairs an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in military spending with tens of billions of dollars in cuts to domestic agencies and education, healthcare, climate, and housing programs.
Trump’s budget request for fiscal year 2027, which must be approved by Congress, includes $73 billion in total cuts to nondefense spending while boosting military outlays by 42%—or nearly $500 billion—compared to current levels.
Programs cut or eliminated in the proposed budget—under the guise of slashing “woke programs” and “ending the Green New Scam”—include the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice program, Community Services Block Grants, electric vehicle charging subsidies, renewable energy initiatives at the Interior Department, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing.
The budget proposal also calls for cuts to the already-depleted Internal Revenue Service, without offering specific figures.
One budget expert noted that, if enacted, the White House’s requested cuts would bring nondefense discretionary spending to “its lowest level in the modern era.”
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in response to Trump’s request that “to pay for his endless wars, he wants the biggest increase to military spending in 70 years.”
“How does he pay for it? Cuts to ‘education, health, housing, and more,’” Casar added. “Hell no.”
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement that “the Trump-Vought budget proposal is a moral obscenity,” referring to Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
“The $500 billion annual increase in proposed Pentagon spending—if it were instead deployed humanely—would be enough to solve or meaningfully address the nation’s great problems, from healthcare to daycare,
by Abdaljawad Omar | Apr 3, 2026 | Article, Israel, Opinion, Palestine, Politics and Movements: International, Prisons and Policing, Reprint
This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on April 02, 2026. It is shared here with permission.
The picture of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir jubilantly trying to open a champagne bottle on the Knesset floor over the passing of a death penalty law for Palestinians will be anchored in history as one of those photographs that needs no caption.
It’s the image of a country that has never truly left the colonial moment into which it was born. It didn’t simply inherit British practices, but kept them alive for over 70 years. It now reaches back to retrieve one of the darkest of these practices.
Israel’s new death penalty law, which exclusively targets Palestinians, did not come out of nowhere. It was passed down from a scaffold the British had already built on the same land, testing it on the same people under the same sky. In his study of Britain’s “pacification” of Palestine, Matthew Hughes, a military historian at Brunel University, shows how the military courts established by the British Mandate in November 1937 were built for speed above all else — a terror performed so quickly that no one had time to appeal or look away. Shaykh Farhan al-Sa’di, an elderly Qassamite revolutionary leader and one of the principal field commanders of the 1936 uprising, was captured on a Monday, tried on a Wednesday, and hanged on a Saturday. It’s the same law Israel reintroduced today.
What those courts also reveal is that British execution policy was, from the beginning, applied differently depending on who stood before the judge. Palestinians were hanged for carrying four bullets; Jews received prison sentences for firing weapons. The courts were equal on
by Branko Marcetic | Apr 3, 2026 | Article, Gaza, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, War
This story originally appeared in Jacobin on April 01, 2026. It is shared here with permission.
One of the most appalling aspects of the Gaza genocide — besides its near-unprecedented slaughter of children and other innocents and its near-obliteration from existence of an entire society, unpparalleled in the modern era — is that officials in both the United States and Israel were overtly hoping to make it the new, horrifying standard for modern war. As we’re seeing right now in Iran and Lebanon, they’re not wasting any time applying that standard elsewhere.
Last year, as Gaza lay in ruins with more than 10 percent of its population killed or injured, the New Yorker ran a chilling story related to the Gaza genocide. The magazine reported that a variety of US military lawyers and legal experts viewed Israel’s spree of murder and destruction in Gaza as not just a completely acceptable way to prosecute a war but as “a dress rehearsal” for a future conflict with a US adversary like China: namely, one free of restraint, adherence to international law, and squeamishness about killing civilians.
What Israel did with full US backing in Gaza, in other words, should be the new normal for war, at least when “our side” does it.
The report sat uncomfortably alongside a pattern of US and Israeli officials incessantly invoking the Allies’ carpet bombing campaigns during World War II to justify the genocide they carried out. For almost the entire period after the war, those bombing campaigns were universally understood to be war crimes and a moral horror — including by Curtis LeMay himself, the psychotic general who led the firebombing of Japan and later itched for nuclear war with the Soviet Union —
by Eleanor J. Bader | Apr 2, 2026 | Article, Economy and Inequality, education, labor, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, Unions
This article was originally published by Truthout on April 01, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
Sixty-two years ago, St. John’s University (SJU) in New York City became the site of the first major faculty strike in U.S. history — a year-long conflict that followed the firing of 33 teachers, including three priests, without due process. Now, the struggle over labor conditions has forced the faculty to once again mobilize, a move precipitated by the current college administration’s abrupt announcement that it will no longer recognize two faculty unions or continue negotiations to hash out a new contract.
St. John’s president, Rev. Brian J. Shanley, and Provost and Senior Vice President Simon Geir Møller, told the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) that the move was necessary to give the college “the flexibility required to innovate … and deliver on our promise to our students.”
But faculty members, who had been demanding improved wages and greater transparency in how their share of health insurance premiums are calculated, call it union busting.
And while the university’s administrators did not respond to Truthout’s multiple requests for an interview, they told NCR that the decision rests on a 2020 decision promulgated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). That decision, Bethany College, 369 NLRB No. 98, removed NLRB jurisdiction over most of the 849 religiously affiliated colleges and universities in the country and prompted at least eight predominantly Catholic schools — Bethany and Boston Colleges, and Duquesne, Edward Waters, Loyola Marymount, Marquette, St. Leo and Wilberforce universities — to end union recognition on campus.
Critics see this as part of a general rightward trend in higher education.
“The anti-union arguments that have emerged coincide
by Julia Conley | Apr 2, 2026 | Article, Economy, Economy and Inequality, health care, Iran, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, War
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on April 02, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
Two days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio unironically advised Iran to spend its public funds “helping the people of Iran” instead of on weapons, President Donald Trump announced that the US government has “to take care of one thing: military protection” and isn’t able to provide people in the US with necessities like healthcare and childcare.
“Oh wow, he actually admitted it,” said US Rap. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) in response.
At an Easter lunch at the White House Wednesday, the president said that “the United States can’t take care of daycare” and demanded that states fully fund childcare programs.
“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare. You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too,” said Trump. “It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
Trump: We can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things. pic.twitter.com/vLGpp7KJnm— FactPost (@factpostnews) April 1, 2026
The wars the president has waged and threatened to wage since taking office last year include his invasion of Venezuela in January and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro; the killing of more than 160 people in boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean; an oil blockade on Cuba that’s left tens of thousands of people waiting for surgeries and unable to access essential medications, with Trump threatening to take over the country by force; and the current US-Israeli war on Iran.
The conflicts that Trump said Americans must sacrifice federal funding for public programs in order to continue are opposed by a majority of Americans, according to polls. All have been called violations
by Sharon Zhang | Apr 1, 2026 | Article, Economy, Economy and Inequality, Iran, Military Industrial Complex, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, War
