The deadly shooting of Renee Good and a never-ending stream of videos and stories documenting the out-of-control behavior of government goons backed by lawless and lying officials show that standing up to these thugs can come at a heavy price for the patriotic Americans and US residents who do so on the streets of Minnesota and elsewhere across the country.

Every day, many of them get roughed up, harassed, arrested, have their property damaged or stolen, and, as we saw last week, literally put their lives on the line.

At this critical moment, congressional Democrats have a chance to do something.

They can either join this fight or allow Donald Trump and his administration to continue to build up an unaccountable federal police force that does the president’s bidding while trampling the civil rights of anybody who lives in America.

And by “join this fight,” we don’t mean “write strongly worded letters” or “harshly condemn the actions of ICE.”

We mean “cut off the spigot of money that has allowed a bunch of fascists to set up the American version of the Gestapo.”

As another government funding deadline draws near, progressives in Congress have made their choice.

On Tuesday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced that its nearly 100 members would oppose new funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “unless there are meaningful and significant reforms to immigration enforcement practices.”

That means, for example, that ICE agents must replace their masks with body cameras.

If DHS’s goal was law enforcement and deporting “the worst of the worst,” then that shouldn’t be controversial… and it would even give the department more footage for all of those propaganda videos it produces.

However, since the objective of DHS is to terrorize the people living in states that voted against Trump while rounding up every brown person they can find, there is obviously going to be some resistance to putting in place sensible measures like ensuring that agents who kill American moms at point blank range can be prosecuted.

While progressives have made their position clear, it would be foolish to count on Democratic leaders to follow suit.

However, if they are complicit in waving through a new DHS appropriations bill that doesn’t include real restraints on this gICEstapo (or perhaps ICEIS… we’re not really sure what would be catchier), then they will betray the many Americans standing up to fascism out in the streets.

And reining in these jackbooted thugs isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s also popular.

According to a poll conducted after the killing of Good, the same cannot be said for Kristi Noem, DHS’ cosplaying secretary. More importantly, Americans don’t like the way ICE is conducting its job. While 84 percent of Republicans approve of its secret police-style tactics and the trampling of civil rights, nobody else does. Independents, for example, oppose the way the agents are enforcing the nation’s immigration laws by a margin of two-to-one.

Therefore, Democrats may want to stiffen their spines and charge into this fight.

And its message-conscious class of consultants may want to take a page from progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who tied the unpopularity of what ICE is doing to the unpopularity of the administration’s cuts to health care subsidies and other government programs.

“I want everybody to understand — the cuts to your health care are what’s paying for this,” she said this week. “You get screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face.”

You can’t really articulate it much better than that, especially because Americans are watching both of these things happening in real time thanks on the one hand to people risking their freedom and their lives to record ICE’s abuses, and, on the other hand, to their disappearing government benefits that Republicans have cut.

Among progressives, the message is catching on.

For example, here is Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) sounding a similar note on Tuesday.

“People should know that them cutting your healthcare, them cutting nutritional assistance, SNAP benefits, all this stuff — they’re cutting that from working people so they can give ICE money to go terrorize our communities,” he said.

Frost also noted that only congressional Democrats have the leverage to do something about this in the upcoming funding battles.

They absolutely should, especially because this isn’t a fight over premium increases that hadn’t materialized yet and therefore might not have felt real to the affected American families.

This is a betrayal of the founding values of the country that is playing out right in front of our eyes every day… all while the administration tries to claim that people exercising their free speech rights are “domestic terrorists.”

What we have here is another one of those pivotal moments in history where people can choose to be heroes or villains, and we certainly hope that all congressional Democrats do what their voters want them to do and put up a fight.

No Democrat Should Vote for More ICE Funding Without Strings Attached originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

Among modern industrialized nations, the United States stands out as one of the very few that still lacks universal healthcare. Why do Americans accept this situation?

While you’re here enjoying Ted Rall’s latest cartoon, please take a moment and read articles on related topics: 

• America’s Healthcare Emergency: How to Fix It From the Ground Up
• Trump’s Secret Super-Duper Health Care Plan Takes Shape
• All Ted Rall cartoons at WhoWhatWhy

Limping Our Own Path originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

‘Gifted’ Dogs Learn Words Just Like One-Year-Olds, Study Finds (Maria)

The author writes, “Dogs understand many words, and studies support this. In addition to dogs with regular knowledge are ‘gifted learner’ dogs with an extraordinary level of word comprehension. … [Researchers found these dogs] were able to learn words by overhearing them — just like one-year-old children.” 

You’ve Heard About Who ICE Is Recruiting. The Truth Is Far Worse. I’m the Proof. (Bethany)

From Slate: “What happens when you do minimal screening before hiring agents, arming them, and sending them into the streets? We’re all finding out.”

Pope Leo Confronts Trump on His Own Terms (Al)

The author writes, “Since his election in May as the first American pope, Leo XIV has become a political and temperamental counterweight to an incendiary American president. A face-off between the two most prominent Americans on the world stage was inevitable, if only for the contrast between President Trump’s blustery inconstancy and Leo’s soft-spoken yet firm dignity. The pope is ‘neither quiet nor shy — if he has something to say, he will say it,’ in the words of his eldest brother, Louis Prevost, a Trump devotee whom the president has hosted in the Oval Office and at Mar-a-Lago.”

The State of Anti-Surveillance Design (Sean)

From 404 Media: “The same sort of algorithms that use your face to unlock your phone are being used by cops to recognize you in traffic stops and immigration raids.  Cops have access to tools that have scraped billions of images from the web, letting them identify essentially anyone by pointing a phone camera at them. Being aware of all the ways your face is being recognized by algorithms and sometimes collected by cameras when you walk outside can start to feel overwhelming at best, and futile to resist at worst.” 

Zombie Fires: How Arctic Wildfires That Come Back To Life Are Ravaging Forests (Laura)

The author writes, “Zombie fires, sometimes betrayed by a plume of steam emerging from the bubbling ground in the frozen forest, were once a rare occurrence in the boreal regions that stretch across the far north through Siberia, Canada and Alaska. But in a rapidly heating world, they are becoming increasingly common. The overwintering burns are small — and often hard to detect – but they are transforming fires into multi-year events and fundamentally altering the soil ecology where they burn, making it harder for forests to regrow.”

Large Black Bear Finally ‘Evicted’ From California Home (Reader Steve)

From KTLA: “A 550-pound black bear that had been living under an Altadena man’s home for more than a month has finally been removed, thanks to help from a wildlife rescue group. ‘I’m relieved — no more banging under the house and smelling him and wondering what’s going on under there,’ Ken Johnson, the homeowner, told KTLA’s Jillian Smukler on Thursday. Johnson said the bear took up residence in the crawlspace beneath his home just before Thanksgiving, and repeated efforts to coax it out didn’t work.”

‘Gifted’ Dogs Learn Words Just Like One-Year-Olds, Study Finds originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

The bad news for the global climate is that US greenhouse gas emissions were up 2.4 percent in 2025 after they had declined the two previous years. The worse news is that the new figure does not yet reflect the anti-climate policies put in place by the Trump administration and the Republican Congress.

It would be one thing if the increase corresponded to a boom in industrial output, i.e., if a surging manufacturing sector used more energy, which in turn had lead to higher emissions.

However, that is not the case, according to the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm that compiles an annual report on greenhouse gas emissions in the US. Instead, even though the growth rate of the real gross domestic product slowed compared to the previous three years, emissions were still on the rise.

Instead, the primary drivers of the uptick were a colder winter, which caused Americans to consume more oil and gas to heat their homes.

Furthermore, data centers used by tech companies to power their artificial intelligence products led to a noticeable increase in the demand for electricity that will likely not slow down in 2026 and beyond.

While that alone is troubling news for those who believe that human activity causes global temperatures to go up, and that this will have calamitous results for the planet, the actions of those who think all of this is a “hoax,” i.e., President Donald Trump and his Republicans, are even more concerning.

“Our longer-term outlook for US [greenhouse gas] emissions changed sharply this past year,” the Rhodium Group stated. While it had previously projected that emissions would be down between 38-56 percent in 2035 compared to 2005, the researchers had to significantly adjust their models.

Now, they estimate that these emissions will only decline by 26-35 percent.

While that may still sound like good news, scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions have to be slashed significantly to prevent a temperature increase that will lead to more severe natural disasters across the globe, droughts, sea-level rises, the loss of species, and human conflict sparked by a decrease in habitable spaces.

The European Union, for example, believes that its existing policies will cause greenhouse gas emissions to be cut in half by 2035 compared to 2005.

Therefore, a reduction of even 35 percent in the US would lag behind America’s peer nations.

The Rhodium Group attributes this development to changes to energy tax credits made in 2025, as well as the Trump administration’s repeal of climate regulations.

In addition, the president is on a crusade against wind power and other forms of renewable energy, which will be reflected in the coming years.

And that is the most troubling aspect of the report. We are seeing this reversal even without taking into account Trump’s policies.

“Apart from some modest contributions to increased coal generation from Department of Energy orders to keep a few plants running, we aren’t yet seeing the direct effects of these policy changes in US emissions,” the Rhodium Group stated. “That could change in the coming year or two, particularly if data center electricity demand continues to surge and the grid responds with more output from existing fossil generators instead of new, clean resources.”

So, will we see this trend continue in 2026 and beyond?

Not necessarily… and not because it isn’t happening, but rather because the Trump administration has stopped collecting the data needed to compile this kind of report.

“Given the Trump administration’s hostility to collecting and reporting data related to climate change, we may not receive any further inventories under this administration,” the Rhodium Group stated in its report.

“The loss of this data means we are heading into murkier waters when it comes to understanding the second-largest emitter of [greenhouse gases] in the world,” the report adds. “While US emissions rose, 2025 was the second- or third-hottest year on record across the globe. Because emissions and their impacts persist even when the government does not count them, we will continue to adapt to this new landscape in order to inform critical US energy and climate policy debates.”

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Back on the Rise in 2025 After Two Years of Declines originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

Combating climate change can feel particularly difficult these days. Countries, states, and municipalities across the globe are missing greenhouse emission reduction targets, and in the United States, President Donald Trump has rolled back key elements of his predecessor’s climate agenda. 

Given the trajectory, it might be tempting for pro-climate policymakers to turn to more aggressive measures of getting people to take action, such as mandates, bans, or restrictions. People would then have to save the planet.

But a study published [in December] in the journal Nature Sustainability suggests that approach can carry real risks. It found that climate policies aimed at forcing lifestyle changes — such as bans on driving in urban centers — can backfire by weakening people’s existing pro-environmental values and triggering political backlash, even among those who already care about climate change. The findings suggest that how climate policy is designed may matter as much as how aggressive it is. 

“Mandates can sometimes get you over a hump and tipping point, but they come with costs,” said Sam Bowles, an author of the paper and an economist at the nonprofit Santa Fe Institute. “There could be negative impacts that people don’t anticipate.”

Researchers surveyed more than 3,000 Germans and found that even people who care about climate change had a notably negative response to mandates or bans that did things like limit thermostat temperatures or meat consumption, which they saw as restricting their freedoms. The paper also compared that to people’s reaction to COVID-related requirements, such as vaccine and mask mandates. While researchers found a backlash effect, or “cost of control,” in both instances, it was 52 percent greater for climate than COVID-19 policies. 

“I didn’t expect that people’s opposition to [a] climate-mandated lifestyle would be so extreme,” said Katrin Schmelz, the other author of the study, who is also at the Santa Fe Institute. She said that people’s trust in their leaders can mitigate the adverse impact, and compared to the United States, Germans have fairly high trust in the government. That, she said, means she would “expect mandates to be less accepted and provoke more opposition here.”

Ben Ho, a behavioral economist at Vassar College, wasn’t involved in the study and wasn’t surprised by its findings. “This is fundamentally about how a society values individual values of liberty and expression against communal values like safety,” he said, pointing to a sizable body of similar research on the potential for backlash to climate policies. “What is novel about their work is to show that these backfire effects are still true today, and what is especially interesting is to connect their data to how people felt about COVID.”

The political consequences of climate-related mandates can be dramatic. In Germany, a 2023 law passed by the country’s then center-left government sought to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels by effectively banning new gas heating systems and promoting heat pumps. Though the policy allowed for exemptions and subsidies, opponents quickly framed it as a ban, dubbing it the heizhammer, or “heating hammer.”

The measure became a potent symbol of government overreach, seized on by far-right parties and contributing to a broader public backlash against the governing coalition. “The last German government basically fell because they were seen to be instituting a ban on gas,” said Gernot Wagner, climate economist at Columbia Business School. The current government is attempting to roll back the legislation. 

Germany’s experience underscores the risks the study identifies. Policies that are perceived as restricting personal choice can trigger resistance that extends beyond the measure itself, weakening public support for climate action more broadly. So far, policies in the US have largely avoided such opposition. That’s largely because American climate policies have historically been much less aggressive, with even progressives rarely turning to outright bans. But there is both precedent for a potential backlash and inklings of potential fights to come.

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, for example, laid out the path to gradually phase out incandescent light bulbs. That led to the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice and Better Use of Light Bulbs acts, two 2011 bills that the then-burgeoning Tea Party movement pushed, without success. Today, methane, also known as natural gas, is at the center of similar cultural fights as cities attempt to ban new hookups and take other steps to curtail its use.

Opponents of climate action seem to have become aware of the power of bans to spark backlash, too. Trump regularly refers to fuel-efficiency benchmarks as an electric vehicle “mandate.” The natural gas industry has also framed efficiency standards for gas appliances as bans and used the backlash effect to help successfully delay other explicit bans on gas in new construction, such as in New York state.

On its face, research like this can put lawmakers in a difficult position: If a policy isn’t aggressive enough, it won’t do much to combat climate change. But if it’s too aggressive, people could turn against it or even the entire political movement behind it, as in Germany, and progress can stall. 

“This doesn’t mean we should give up on climate policies,” said Ho. “It just means we should be more mindful in how policies are designed, and that trust could be a key component.”

Schmelz and Bowles both point to a similar conclusion, and say that any policy should at least consider the plasticity of citizens’ beliefs and values. “Ethical commitments and social norms are very fragile and they’re easily destroyed,” Bowles said. Schmelz added that people in power “can upset and reduce willingness to cooperate by designing poor policies.”

One way that policies can avoid backlash is by focusing less on banning a particular action and instead on making the other options more abundant and more attractive (by adding tax incentives or rebates, for example). “Offering alternatives is helping in enforcing green values,” Schmelz said. Another option could be aiming to make climate-unfriendly activities more expensive rather than restricting them. As Bowles put it, “people don’t feel like they are being controlled by a higher price.”

The closer a policy gets to people’s personal lives, they say, the more important it is to be mindful of potential missteps. The authors also emphasize that they aren’t claiming mandates or bans never work — seatbelt laws and smoking restrictions have become commonplace, for instance. But those were enacted in a different era and there was little public dissent about their benefits to personal health. 

“There was always somebody in that person’s family saying, ‘No, look, sweetheart, I really wish you would be wearing your seatbelt,’” said Bowles. “We don’t have that in the case of the environment, so it’s a much greater challenge to shift the rhetoric.”

But ultimately, Bowles said the broader message that he wants to convey is that people are generally generous and want their actions to align with their values. This new research underscores the need for policies that help them embrace that inclination, rather than temper it, which mandates or bans can do.

“People have a lot of good values,” he said. “When we look at our citizens and are designing policies, don’t take them to be jerks.”

This story by Tik Root was originally published by Grist and is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story. WhoWhatWhy has been a partner in Covering Climate Now since its inception in 2019.

Why Forcing People To Go Green Can Backfire originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

While you’re here enjoying Jon Richards’s latest cartoon, please take a moment to read these articles on related topics: 

• Trump Administration Is Now Murder Incorporated. Watch Your Back
• The Upside to Threatening Powell: A Blueprint for Post-Trump Accountability
• More Cartoons by Jon Richards

Bedtime Story for the New Proles originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

Minimum Wage Rises In Some States As Workers Struggle With Basic Costs (Maria)

The author writes, “As the rising cost of basic expenses continues to fuel an affordability crisis, millions of workers will see an increase in pay this month with new minimum wages taking effect. Nineteen states, as well as 49 cities and counties, are increasing their wage floors to at least $15 per hour for some or all employees after wage hike campaigns across the country.”

Can ICE Arrest You? What the Law Says About Agents’ Actions and Protester Rights (Reader Steve)

From the San Francisco Chronicle: “After a federal immigration officer fatally shot a Minneapolis woman who appeared to be trying to drive past the officer in her car, questions have arisen about the rights of people who are being increasingly confronted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on city streets. … Since the Supreme Court’s Dec. 23 ruling that barred Trump from sending National Guard troops to Chicago, the president has halted his deployments of federal forces to Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and other cities. But he says they’ll be back, which raises questions about the rights and obligations of everyday people who encounter federal officers. Here is a look at the laws guiding how immigration agents are allowed to interact with the public, and those they suspect of immigration law violations.”

Inside a Gaza Medical Clinic at Risk of Shutting Down After an Israeli Ban (Dana)

For NPR: “Mohammed Ibrahim wants to run and play soccer again, but the 14-year-old has had three surgeries since an accident this summer when he was run over as he tried to grab food off an aid truck for his starving family. A nurse at this Gaza City clinic changes the gauze on his right leg. He winces in pain. … This clinic is run by Doctors Without Borders, also known by its French initials MSF, an international aid group that provides lifesaving care in war zones around the world. But this clinic and MSF’s 19 other health care facilities and medical points across Gaza are facing massive pressure, and some may even have to shut down. Israel banned MSF and dozens of international aid organizations, preventing them from bringing in aid or international staff to Gaza and the occupied West Bank under new security and transparency rules that came into effect on Jan. 1.”

Former Republican Chair Says US Institutions Yielded to Trump, ‘The Bully’ (Russ)

From The Guardian: “The biggest surprise of Donald Trump’s first year back in office is how quickly America’s institutions capitulated to ‘the bully,’ said Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) turned arch critic. But with the midterm elections for Congress looming, Steele predicts a resounding Democratic victory amid a hunger among voters to hold the president and his allies accountable for threatening democracy. Steele, 67, was the first Black chair of the RNC. … As the first anniversary of Trump’s second inauguration approaches, Steele said the president’s authoritarian assault on the constitution and rule of law was more expected than the way in which many law firms, universities and media companies caved.”

Trump Bill May Result in Over a Million Missed Cancer Screenings (Mili)

The author writes, “Projected losses in Medicaid coverage as a result of President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ could result in more than 1 million missed cancer screenings and hundreds of avoidable deaths within 2 years of federal Medicaid eligibility restrictions taking effect, researchers found. … Those missed screenings would translate to 2,341 undetected cancers — with an excess of 326 cancers presenting at an advanced stage — and 155 excess deaths.”

Uruguay’s Renewable Charge: A Small Nation, A Big Lesson For The World (DonkeyHotey)

From Forbes: “Uruguay did what most nations still call impossible: it built a power grid that runs almost entirely on renewables — at half the cost of fossil fuels. The physicist who led that transformation says the same playbook could work anywhere — if governments have the courage to change the rules. For Ramon Méndez Galain, the energy transition isn’t just about climate — it’s about economics. Uruguay’s shift to renewables, he argues, demonstrated that clean energy can be cheaper, more stable, and create more jobs than fossil fuels. Once the country adjusted the playing field that had long favored oil and gas, renewables outperformed on every front: halving costs, creating 50,000 jobs, and protecting the economy from price shocks.”

First, the Frogs Died. Then People Got Sick (Laura)

The authors write, “[Brian] Gratwicke is a conservation biologist who leads amphibian work at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute. He had flown to Panama, in the middle of rainy season, to help resurrect frog species that had vanished from the cloud forest decades ago. Whether these amphibians can strike out on their own and thrive here again is uncertain. What is becoming increasingly clear is that without them, humans are in trouble. It turns out that frogs — in biblical times regarded as a plague — are actually guardians against disease. As dozens of frog species have declined across Central America, scientists have witnessed a remarkable chain of events: With fewer tadpoles to eat mosquito larvae, rates of mosquito-borne malaria in the region have climbed, resulting in a fivefold increase in cases.”

Minimum Wage Rises In Some States As Workers Struggle With Basic Costs originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

As I write this, the particulars of the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis are still emerging. Debate rages about whether the officer who killed her was in danger. It seems pretty clear at this moment that he wasn’t; that shooting her was not an act of self-defense. 

But we’ll learn more. 

What is clear from this video — especially if you look at where the officer’s feet are in relation to the left front wheel, at the time of the first shot — is that he seems already out of the car’s path, or that 99 percent of his body is out of the way.

Note: He is not “run over” lying in the street. The officer — Jonathan E. Ross — rapidly moves to the driver’s side window where he fires twice more.

Seconds later, in a video taken by the officer himself, you can hear him mutter “Fucking bitch.” His words are faint because, according to the other video, he is now holding his phone down. We believe we recognize his voice because we first hear him earlier when he talks to Good’s wife while filming her. This same video shows Good facing Ross just before she is shot. She smiles at him, and says, “Dude, I’m not mad at you.” 

Donald Trump’s own version of events is… interesting:

I have just viewed the clip. … [The driver] violently, willingly, viciously ran over the ICE officer. … [I]t is hard to believe he is alive, but is now recovering in the hospital.”

We see the officer afterward, apparently fine, but for a barely discernible little hitch to his walk. He goes to the car after it crashed, sends bystanders away, stands around talking to fellow officers. We do not see him being carried off in an ambulance. What we see is him get into his SUV and leave the scene. (Will we ever see a hospital report on his claimed nearly fatal injuries?)

Yet, some people are waiting for the Trump administration’s “investigation” to tell them what to think — because they seem unable to believe their own eyes. And some so-called analysts treat it like a rorschach test — as if there were no objective, physical evidence.  

In a Washington Post story, “Two congressmen watched an ICE shooting video. Only one is sure of what he saw,” Rep. Eric Swallwell (D-CA) said: “I saw a murder.” On the other hand, Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) — watching videos from his tiny iphone screen — said he couldn’t really see the officer, that he couldn’t make out what was happening. 

And, according to the Post, “Flood said he did not take issue with Trump and Noem’s claims that Good ran over the officer, a description not supported by the video.”

Instead of using his own eyes on the best evidence we have, Flood prefers to rely on what one might politely call “overly interested parties” as to what happened: “The secretary has access to a lot more evidence and facts than I do.”

What strikes me in a bigger sense, though, is the way in which the loudest voices line up. As expected, people quickly take sides. However, I’m struck by the way that supporters of ICE oppose civil disobedience when it involves removing people they don’t want here, or believe are here illegally, or are simply at odds with them culturally or politically. 

However, they also thought the January 6 rioters were absolutely justified to commit violence — including against law enforcement officers — having been goaded by Trump and others making false claims about a stolen election. 

And many told lies about the identity of the rioters — that they were members of Antifa, or from Black Lives Matter, or even FBI agents — contradicting their first idea, that they were justified. The most bizarre lie of all — as in the case of the latest ICE shooting in Minneapolis — totally contradicted what January 6 videos showed: They said the rioters were just enthusiastic “tourists,” or that it was a “love fest.” 

Objectively, going out of your way to protect vulnerable strangers — the immigrants, and citizens, targeted by ICE — reflects an entirely different class of values from attacking elected officials, buildings, and law officers because of a proclaimed falsehood (and because the candidate you like lost).

*** 

As Trump’s markedly declining mental health manifests itself in so many ways, business leaders cozying up to the administration for financial gain might want to think twice about getting in deeper with a madman. 

Nobody wants to be a party to a crime. And right now, Washington is a crime scene. 

German companies that cooperated with Hitler suffered consequences for decades. I still remember from my childhood hearing how many people would not buy a Mercedes-Benz or a Volkswagen. 

Now even industries like oil and gas — with their history of colonialism, corruption, and winning at all costs — are nervous. On Friday, the White House summoned their executives to meet with Trump because of how he put them out over their skis on Venezuela. 

Of course, as noted by papers like The New York Times, the companies are worried about the business risks of making a long-term commitment to the oil-rich country, given the dicey history between it, the US, and other foreign oil companies. 

But I saw no immediate mention of something much more important: the extremely serious reputational risks and, potentially, maybe even legal risks to participating in Trump’s plans to invade, control, and expropriate natural resources from foreign countries. 

They are absolutely right to look before leaping. Any corporation or industry selling out to placate a madman like Trump deserves long-term adverse consequences, enforced by public opinion. 

The administration claims that smaller firms want a piece of the Venezuela action, and of course they do. They are eager for profits wherever they can be found, and probably see no downside. But the big brands — notably Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips — had better think twice, lest they become the new Teslas. 

Pretty sure they don’t want to see bumper stickers saying “Don’t buy gas from a dictator’s stooges.” 

Continued Signs of Insanity 

The signs of delusion and megalomania are now coming constantly. 

Like this headline: 

Trump says he will meet Machado — and would accept Nobel Peace Prize from her

Trump also said “it ‘would be a great honor’ if the Venezuelan opposition leader decided to share her Nobel Peace Prize with him.”

And you may have seen Trump’s comment that international law doesn’t apply to him — that he is only constrained by “my own morality.”

My first reaction was Freudian: that he said “by my own mortality.” 

Nuff said on that, as I don’t need the Secret Service on my doorstep. 

But what he actually said is even more interesting, since I don’t think I have ever heard him reference the term or even acknowledge that such a thing as “morality” exists.

And it is kind of shocking that even such minimal self-awareness and self-diagnosis may have crossed his mind. 

His actual words (to a New York Times interviewer) were that the only limits on his actions are “my own morality, my own mind.” 

And since we know that his moral compass has never seemed to constrain him in the past, and that his mind is rapidly decaying from an already bad spot, he’s clearly warning us that he will stop at nothing.

As such, he is confessing to being the most dangerous man on the planet. Where it goes from here is up to those in positions of power. 

Are we going to let this literally existential threat — this severely damaged man has his finger on the world’s predominant nuclear arsenal — continue to spiral out of control? 

Greenland Payoffs 

Trump is showing increasing signs that he would use military force to seize Greenland — sorry, I can’t believe I am actually writing these words — but he’s apparently also open to using cash enticements. Administration officials have discussed lump-sum payments for a while now, but according to Reuters, the conversations have become more serious lately. 

In response to Trump’s saber rattling, Denmark says if Trump attacks Greenland, that’s the end of NATO. Who now doubts that Putin pulls Trump’s strings? This is exactly what Putin has always wanted. 

Related: Will Europe Cave?

***

His delusions of grandeur of course manifest themselves in his ballroom. And it’s like a chain reaction: Having made the terrible decision to raze the East Wing and replace it with a two-story ballroom, they now want to add a second story to the West Wing colonnade for reasons of symmetry. 

And while Trump is wrecking cultural institutions at home (Kennedy Center, etc., etc.), other pillagers are rampaging worldwide. As Le Monde reports, paramilitary forces have looted 4,000 items from Sudan’s national museum. They even filmed themselves with ancient mummies they had plundered. 

Can anyone doubt that the January 6 crowd and the kind of people signing up to work for ICE would have similar contempt for the very idea of museums and history? 

This Is Rich 

You sorta have to love that Trump is going with a massive entourage later this month to Davos, Switzerland, where the world’s elites that he professes disdain for gather at the World Economic Forum. It’s his third such trip. He’ll be joined by at least eight of his acolytes, according to Semafor, including the likes of Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, Steve Witkoff, David Sacks, and Mehmet Oz.

It’s kind of head-spinning to consider how much Trump and his sycophantic bros like hanging with the same people he regularly attacked in speeches to the American masses in order to win office.

More perplexing is his planned topic: how he is making things more affordable for the average American. Now that’s a subject of concern here! Where do I begin? Rising food costs. Health insurance payments predicted to double or triple. Child care so expensive that couples are reluctant to have more children…

Now, there’s nothing wrong with his going to Davos to hear a variety of viewpoints from people of different national and ethnic backgrounds. Even the global rich deserve to be heard! 

But the fundamental disconnect between rhetoric and reality is the ultimate topic here. 

Trump and his buddies like Bessent and Lutnick have been looting the store, and giving out goodies to others of their class at home and abroad. 

This means that the Davos attendees are in a difficult spot: generally benefiting from the Trump presidency but also deeply worried about the global chaos and violence Trump represents. 

Plenty of the attendees are sober individuals who know that they and their companies cannot keep minting money if the planet turns into one giant conflagration. 

Meanwhile, more and more Americans are abandoning their country altogether. A partner at an advisory firm for those seeking to relocate abroad told Bloomberg that whereas US nationals represented just 4 percent of the firm’s global business in 2018, today it’s above 40 percent. Wow and wow. 

For those of us who choose to stay — or are unable to leave — Trump on Friday tossed out the idea of a one-year cap on credit card interest rates, at 10 percent. In a Truth Social post, he said that the public is being “ripped off.” 

That’s funny coming from someone who gives banks pretty much everything they want and has been deregulating them like there’s no tomorrow. 

Trump said he wants the cap to take effect right away, on January 20, which is the one-year anniversary of his return to power. So far, he hasn’t been clear about whether this will somehow be compelled by government, or if he is asking his well-compensated banker friends to do it voluntarily. 

Of course, this comes during the all-crucial midterm election year. And yes, it sounds like a “teaser” rate on a credit card (or a substack). But a year is a long time, so we’re talking real money. Given that Trump has no direct power to enact his gift to the little guy, and given that the cost to his pals is that high, if this does happen it will be because both the usurers and Trump recognize the necessity of a serious sop to the voting suckers. If the behemoths prove willing to part with what amounts to billions, keeping Congress under GOP control must logically be worth that much, and more, to them — think of it as an enormous campaign contribution to MAGA. 

The Opposition IS Growing 

OK, want some good news now? Well, how about the unmistakable fact that the opposition to Trump is growing? 

On Thursday, Congress pushed back on the severe budget cuts to science programs that Trump wanted.

Also on Thursday, nearly two dozen Republicans in Congress broke with Trump on several issues. Clearly, they’re doing so largely out of self-interest, not principle; but it is interesting to see, for example, Colorado Republicans who have previously backed Trump to the hilt now forced to defend their state’s interests against his petty political acts of retribution. Although ultimately they failed to override Trump’s vetoes, which would have required a two-thirds vote, they did register strong opposition.

At least one issue — the resolution calling for no more military action in Venezuela — involves “principles,” even if they come down to the dangerously naive “America First” isolationist line that Trump pushed in his campaign and which, if applied to Ukraine, would give Putin’s imperialist ambitions free rein. 

Perhaps more importantly, I’m seeing signs everywhere, including in my daily conversations with fellow Americans, that young men who were intrigued by Trump are becoming concerned — if not revolted — by his unbridled actions. That includes the so-called “Joe Rogan bros.” 

Couple this with the mounting defections of socially conservative Latinos and Blacks — who had swallowed Trump’s family-values and pocketbook campaign rhetoric but are not seeing any substantive follow-up — and, well, the base is increasingly shrinking to a finite group of hardcore MAGA cheerleaders. Which, I submit, bodes well for the midterm elections later this year.

Trump Administration Is Now Murder Incorporated. Watch Your Back originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

Under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all members, including the United States itself. If the US were to carry out its threat to attack Greenland — a territory of Denmark, a close NATO ally — this would create a highly bizarre and unprecedented situation.

While you’re here enjoying Ted Rall’s latest cartoon, please take a moment and read articles on related topics: 

• Will Europe Cave?
• Denmark Tells Trump to Keep His Greedy Mitts Off Greenland
• All Ted Rall cartoons at WhoWhatWhy

In the Land of the Green originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy

With his poll numbers in the dumps, especially when it comes to how Americans feel about the economy and high prices, Donald Trump is desperate for some quick fixes this year. One of them was the attack on Venezuela and the subsequent looting of the country’s oil. Apparently, another is to replace Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell with a patsy who will allow the president to dictate the country’s monetary policy.

To do so, Trump needs a reason, which he hopes the Department of Justice will deliver.

Before we get into that, it is important to remember that every accusation the president makes against anybody is either an admission of guilt or a statement of intent. For example, he has been railing for years against a “weaponized” DOJ because it dared to prosecute him. We have pointed out repeatedly that this is nonsensical. The crimes he has been accused of have been extremely well documented in detailed indictments, and, under the previous administration, plenty of Democrats were prosecuted (including Joe Biden’s own son) while Republicans were not.

It’s a different story now, when Pam Bondi and other Trump loyalists are using DOJ to go after the president’s perceived enemies. Like Powell.

On Sunday night, the chairman of the Fed revealed that the Department of Justice threatened him with a criminal indictment related to testimony he gave before the Senate Banking Committee last year about the cost of the renovation of the Federal Reserve building.

Powell noted that this is all just a contrived justification for getting rid of him.

“This unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure,” he noted. “This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings.

“Those are pretexts,” he added. “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.”

And that pretty much sums it up.

Trump hopes that, by destroying the independence of the Federal Reserve, he can set interest rates in a way that gives the economy a boost before the midterms.

Otherwise, he and his Republicans are facing a shellacking that would result in Democrats winning control of at least one chamber of Congress, which would be devastating for Trump because, in that case, the criminal enterprise that is this administration would be subject to real oversight.

Which is why we are of two minds when it comes to the threat of indicting Powell for lying to Congress.

On the one hand, this is an egregious abuse of power.

DOJ is functioning like a political hit squad instead of an independent arbiter of justice. Anybody who crossed Trump is a target while those who support him seem to be immune from punishment.

On the other hand, we welcome that the president and his administration are setting some important precedents that will be used to punish actual criminal wrongdoing when he leaves office. It is becoming abundantly clear that, while there is zero accountability now, people will have to go to prison eventually for violating the Constitution and breaking the country’s laws.

And when they are being prosecuted, including for the same things that DOJ is accusing Trump’s “enemies” of now, then even the most hypocritical MAGA supporters won’t be able to claim that this is some sort of unique weaponization of DOJ (although we are certain that they will try).

There is one other thing, though: The president and his supporters must know what losing in the midterms, and, more importantly, in 2028 would mean for them personally.

A lot is at stake for them, and this latest overreach is further proof of the extreme measures they are willing to take in order to stay in power.

This will be the story of 2026: How much of an autocracy will the United States have become by the time Americans get to vote in November, and how fair will that election be?

We are gravely concerned that we will not like the answers to these questions but nevertheless hold out hope that the midterms will be too big to rig, even for the Trump regime.

The Upside to Threatening Powell: A Blueprint for Post-Trump Accountability originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy