A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



February 28, 2025

Feels increasingly like a scam......

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells NPR: 'Everything feels increasingly like a scam'

Steve Inskeep

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is trying to find her party's path back into power.

The New York Democrat is a more seasoned figure than when she burst onto the national scene during the first Trump administration. Elected by surprise in 2018, Ocasio-Cortez was a progressive insurgent, a democratic socialist, a frequent critic of her own party, and a social media sensation. She was also a leading character on Fox News, a figure conservatives loved to hate.

Seven years later, she remains an outsized public figure, who also has built relationships inside Congress with Democrats and even some Republicans. At 35, she is a veteran lawmaker.

Reconciliation is the key to unlocking Trump's agenda. Here's how it works
We sat with Ocasio-Cortez this week just after House Democrats managed a show of unity: they all voted against a Republican budget plan, which barely passed. We talked through her party's path toward political recovery.

Here are a few key points from our video interview.

She thinks Republicans' early moves will hurt them.

"The Republican Party is making certain large errors right now," she said, predicting that an $880 billion cut to Medicaid would affect many voters' health care, and that the president's bid to fire many federal workers will degrade critical services.

She's still defending people without legal status.

Since their election defeat, some Democrats have suggested their party needs a fresh approach to immigration. Many voters saw President Biden's administration as too lax toward people in the U.S. without legal status.

Ocasio-Cortez insists that she still favors a path to citizenship. And she publicly feuded with Tom Homan, President Trump's border czar, after she held an online know-your-rights seminar for people who feared being confronted by immigration agents.

When threatened with investigation, she challenged the Justice Department to try it.

Homan told Fox News that he had asked the Justice Department if she was violating the law by trying "to educate people how they evade law enforcement."

"I was informing all of my constituents of their constitutional protections and in particular, their constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure," Ocasio-Cortez told NPR. She said she intended to put a question to the Justice Department herself: "Well, there is a member of the Trump administration who is threatening and seeks to open an inquiry. And are you going to do it?"

After the interview, the Democrat sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, which she shared with NPR. "I write to request clarity on whether the Department of Justice has yielded to political pressure and attempts to weaponize the agency against elected officials whose speech they disagree with."

Like Trump, she says government doesn't work for many people.

"Everything feels increasingly like a scam," she said. "Not only are grocery prices going up, but it's like everything has a fee and a surcharge. And I think that anger is put out at government."

The Democrat asserts that in her view, government is working very well for the wealthy, while often failing ordinary people.

Unlike Trump, she doesn't want to drastically cut government.

"I mean to the FAA? No. To the NIH? No," she said. "I actually don't want someone taking a wrecking ball to someone's chemotherapy to just see what happens."

She said she was open to examining "certain things like Medicare Advantage that I think is a scam, " allowing private insurers to collect extra premiums.

Economic blackout

Today’s ‘economic blackout’ began from an unlikely source. But it’s tapped into Americans’ anger

By Nathaniel Meyersohn

In early February, John Schwarz, a self-described “mindfulness and meditation facilitator,” proposed a 24-hour nationwide “economic blackout” of major chains on the last day of the month.

Schwarz urged people to forgo spending at Amazon, Walmart, and all other major retailers and fast-food companies for a day. He called on them to spend money only at small businesses and on essential needs.

“The system has been designed to exploit us,” said Schwarz, who goes by “TheOneCalledJai” on social media, in a video to his roughly 250,000 followers on Instagram and TikTok. “On February 28, we are going to remind them who really holds the power. For one day, we turn it off.”

Schwarz, 57, has no background in social or political organizing. Until early this year, he almost exclusively posted videos of himself offering inspirational messages and motivational tips sitting in his home, backyard and shopping mall parking lots.

He had low expectations for his boycott message gaining traction. “I thought maybe a handful of my followers would do it,” he told CNN in a phone interview this week.

Instead, Schwarz’s call rapidly spread online. His video has been shared more than 700,000 times on Instagram and viewed 8.5 million times. Celebrities such as Stephen King, Bette Midler and Mark Ruffalo have encouraged people to participate. Reporters wrote and aired TV pieces about the boycott, propelling it further.

The “economic blackout” effort is relatively uncoordinated and nebulous. Experts on consumer boycotts and corporate strategy are dubious that it will make a dent in the bottom lines of the massive companies it targets, let alone the vast US economy. Effective boycotts are typically well organized, make clear and specific demands and are focused on one company or issue.

But this boycott has gained strength online because it has captured visceral public anger with the American economy, corporations and politics.

“There’s the sense that a lot of people want to do something. Doing something in the American context has often meant using pocketbook politics,” said Lawrence Glickman, a historian at Cornell University and author of “Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in America.” “This a way of engaging in a form of collective action outside of the electoral arena that makes people feel some connection and sense of potential power.”

People online say they want to join the boycott for many different reasons. Some are commenting about high prices and the cost of living. Others are angry about the power of large corporations and billionaires such as Elon Musk. Some are pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to gut federal programs and fears about an autocracy in America. Yet others want to boycott companies rolling back their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Schwarz scrambled as a result of the response to create a group. He called it The People’s Union and describes it on its new website (that is frequently down) as a “movement created by the people, for the people to “(take) action against corporate control, political corruption, and the economic system.” He has raised around $70,000 in donations on a GoFundMe page that solicits funds for social campaigns, legal advocacy and other efforts. He has also called for more targeted boycotts in the coming weeks against specific companies, including Amazon and Walmart. (Walmart declined to comment to CNN. Amazon did not respond to comment.)

Although the response online appears to be strongest from the political left, Schwarz has no ideology that could be considered consistently progressive or conservative, at least along the traditional US political spectrum. He does not belong to either political party, but he supports Bernie Sanders. In recent posts, has advocated for the end of federal income tax, term limits in Congress, universal health care and price caps.

The boycott has “spread so well because people have just had enough and they’re fed up and they’re tired,” Schwarz said.

Backlash against Target

Schwarz’s boycott call has coincided with a more organized effort to punish retailers that have retreated on DEI, particularly Target.

Dozens of Fortune 500 companies have backtracked on their diversity programs in response to pressure from activists and right-wing legal groups, and, more recently, the Trump administration’s threats to investigate what it characterizes as “illegal DEI,” including potential criminal cases against companies.

Much of the anger has been directed toward Target. Target is under more heat than companies like Walmart, John Deere or Tractor Supply because it went further in its DEI efforts, and it has a more progressive base of customers.

Target was a leading advocate for DEI programs in the business world in the years after George Floyd was murdered by police in the company’s home city of Minneapolis in 2020. Target also spent years building a public reputation as a progressive employer on LGBTQ issues.

But days into the Trump presidency, Target announced it was eliminating hiring goals for minority employees, ending an executive committee focused on racial justice and making other changes to its diversity initiatives. Target said it remained committed to “creating a sense of belonging for our team, guests and communities” and also stressed the need for “staying in step with the evolving external landscape.”

Target’s retreat sparked anger from customers and boycott calls, particularly Black consumers.

Rev. Jamal Bryant of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Stonecrest, Georgia, has called for 100,000 people to begin a 40-day boycott of Target on March 5 to coincide with the start of Lent. Participants are encouraged to purchase products from Black-owned businesses during this period.

“We have witnessed a disturbing retreat from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives by major corporations,” the petition says. “The greatest insult comes from Target.”

Target did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

There are signs that the blowback from Target’s move may be impacting the company.

Customer visits to Target, Walmart and Costco have slowed over the last four weeks, but they have dropped the most at Target, according to Placer.ai., which uses phone location data to track visits. The slowdown could also be attributed to weather, economic conditions and other variables, Placer.ai cautioned.

During the week of February 10, the latest week available, foot traffic to Target dropped 7.9% and 4.8% to Walmart. Foot traffic to Costco, which has stood by its DEI policies, increased 4.8%.

The data “shows a clear drop in traffic in late January into mid-February following the company’s step back from DEI,” Joseph Feldman, an analyst at Telsey Advisory Group, said in a note to clients this week.

Boycotts hard to sustain

Despite the recent slowdown at Target, boycotts tend to be short-lived and rarely do financial damage to companies.

“It’s very difficult to sustain anything longer than a few weeks,” said Young Hou, a marketing professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business who has studied consumer boycotts. Consumers are typically fickle and don’t want to disrupt their routines for extended stretches, he said. Boycotts can also spark a counterreaction, leading supporters of a company to mobilize and increase their spending, negating the impact.

A boycott campaign against Target may be hard to sustain because other chains that consumers might switch to like Walmart or Amazon have also rolled back DEI programs.

The most successful example of a boycott in recent years has come on the right.

In 2023, Bud Light’s parent company A-B InBev lost as much as $1.4 billion in sales because of right-wing backlash to Bud Light’s brief partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Entertainer Kid Rock posted a video of himself shooting a stack of Bud Light cases. Other popular right-wing activists like Ben Shapiro and Candace Ownens and Republican politicans, including now-Vice President JD Vance and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, publicly supported the boycott. The brand also angered left-leaning customers because of its conciliatory response to right-wing attacks.

One of the key reasons the Bud Light boycott was successful was because it was very easy for customers to replace Bud Light with Coors Light or Miller Lite or another beer without much sacrifice.

Still, consumer boycotts and protests can raise public awareness about an issue, pressure companies to make changes or hurt their public reputations.

During the 1990s and 2000s, for example, protests on college campuses over Nike’s use of sweatshop labor forced the company to raise the minimum age for hiring new workers at shoe factories to 18 and allow human rights groups to inspect factory conditions in Asia. After the Parkland, Florida, school shooting in 2018, consumers and activists successfully pressured Delta, Avis, MetLife and other companies to sever ties with the National Rifle Association and end discounts to NRA members.

“The more specific the reason to boycott, usually the more effective those boycotts have a chance of being,” said Cornell University’s Glickman. “Boycotts rarely cripple incredibly powerful companies, but they can put them on the defensive.”

Mineral deal dreams

Trump’s mineral deal dreams meet war-torn reality inside a struggling Ukraine mine

From CNN's Nick Paton Walsh, Victoria Butenko and Daria Markina-Tarasova

A moonshot rare earth minerals deal is suddenly the focus of talking peace in Ukraine. The deal’s signatories, the US and Ukraine, appear to have opposing interpretations of its terms, which leave many thorny details for a later discussion.

Some current and former US officials have cast doubt on President Donald Trump’s claim that the potential deal he is on the verge of signing with Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky would offer the US easy access to a plethora of rare earth minerals.

Much of what does exist will be difficult to exploit, particularly at a time of war.

And from a beleaguered titanium mine in the town of Irshansk, where electricity is only sometimes on for three hours a day, it is hard to see how Ukraine could, in this lifetime, get to the half a trillion dollars Trump has suggested they might repay.

“Now we don’t know what and how our work will go on even tomorrow,” said Dmytro Holik, director of mining and concentrating plant at Ukrainian conglomerate Group DF.

“Every day we see how Ukraine’s energy system is being destroyed. Every day, entire regions are cut off in an emergency,” he added, a reference to the waves of drones and missiles Russia pounds Ukrainian homes and energy infrastructure with each night.

The plant’s staff are mostly men, kept away from conscription as titanium is considered a critical industry. Profits are low, prospects dim.

The proposed minerals bonanza now at the heart of continued US aid to Ukraine in the largest war in Europe since the 1940s, seems to speak to a fantastical future world of prosperity.

Trump on Thursday held out the possibility of US personnel in Ukraine working to extract minerals once a mineral resources deal was in effect.

But the extent of Ukraine’s mineral wealth is unclear. And the nature of the deal is opaque.

Critical talks

Trump hosts Zelensky at White House for critical talks on Ukraine

From CNN staff

President Donald Trump is hosting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House for a bilateral meeting and news conference, where the leaders are expected to discuss US efforts to end the war and potentially sign a minerals deal.

Trump did not respond to shouted questions from reporters on whether the two leaders would sign a deal today, but as he shook Zelensky’s hand, Trump joked that the Ukrainian leader is “all dressed up today.”

The agreement would offer the US easy access to Kyiv’s untapped mineral riches in exchange for investment and what Ukraine hopes would be concrete security guarantees. The deal’s details remain murky but analysts say it could lead to broader peace negotiations.

Just days after calling Ukraine’s president a dictator, Trump softened his tone ahead of the meeting, telling reporters Thursday, “I have a lot of respect for him.”

Trump met with French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Thursday, as the European leaders looked to get security guarantees for Ukraine and tried to align themselves with Trump after they were cut out of US-Russia talks on ending the war.

CNN’s Donald Judd contributed reporting to this post. This post has been updated with more of Zelensky’s arrival to the White House.

Met with bipartisan Senate delegation

Zelensky met with bipartisan Senate delegation to discuss military assistance for Ukraine

From CNN’s Daria Tarasova-Markina in Kyiv

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he met with a bipartisan US Senate delegation during his trip to Washington, DC on Friday, which he described as “an important visit to the United States.”

“Our discussions focused on the continued military assistance for Ukraine, relevant legislative initiatives, my meeting with President Trump, efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace, our vision for ending the war, and the importance of robust security guarantees,” Zelensky said in a post on X.

“We take pride in having strategic partners and friends like the United States. We are grateful for the unwavering bicameral and bipartisan support for Ukraine throughout all three years of Russia’s full-scale aggression,” he added.

The Ukrainian president is now meeting with Trump, where the leaders are expected to discuss US efforts to end the war and potentially sign a minerals deal.

Interview

Trump muses about taking over DC government in new interview

From CNN's Michael Williams

President Donald Trump in a new interview published Friday mused about whether he should “take over the government” of Washington, DC.

In a wide-ranging interview with The Spectator’s editor-at-large Ben Domenech at the White House Thursday, Trump discussed his plan to have the Super Bowl-winning Philadelphia Eagles visit the White House. The conversation then shifted to RFK Stadium, where the Washington Commanders (then the Redskins) played until moving to Maryland in 1996 and is undergoing demolition with ongoing conversations surrounding the team’s potential future at a rebuilt stadium.

Trump said he thought the RFK Stadium site is “beautiful,” and then asked: “So should I take over the government of DC?”

He later added, “Well we’re trying to do it. We’re looking at doing it.” Trump earlier this month also floated the idea of the federal government taking over DC, which has been governed by Home Rule since 1973.

Here’s what else he said in the interview:

Biden’s election loss: Trump said he had asked then-President Joe Biden who he blamed for his election loss during a meeting at the White House after the November election. Biden, Trump said, responded: “I blame Barack.” Trump continued, “And he said, ‘And I also blame Nancy Pelosi.’ I said, ‘What about the vice president?’ He said, ‘No, I don’t blame her,’ which was interesting. Yeah. He didn’t blame her. He blamed … he told me he blamed those two people.” CNN has not independently verified Trump’s claims about Biden’s remarks. CNN has reached out to a Biden spokesperson for comment.

Former President Richard Nixon: Trump praised Nixon, saying he was “very smart.” Trump said he “might have had more” enemies than the infamously paranoid president, who resigned from his role amid the Watergate scandal in 1974. “People don’t realize how smart he was, but he made one bad decision. He didn’t fight. I spoke to his family. They say he regretted that until the day he died. He didn’t fight,” Trump said.

Attempting to recruit disgruntled federal employees

Russia and China attempting to recruit disgruntled federal employees, US intelligence shows

From CNN's Natasha Bertrand, Katie Bo Lillis and Zachary Cohen

Foreign adversaries including Russia and China have recently directed their intelligence services to ramp up recruiting of US federal employees working in national security, targeting those who have been fired or feel they could be soon, according to four people familiar with recent US intelligence on the issue.

The intelligence indicates that foreign adversaries are eager to exploit the Trump administration’s efforts to conduct mass layoffs across the federal workforce – a plan laid out by the Office of Personnel Management earlier this week.

Russia and China are focusing their efforts on recently fired employees with security clearances and probationary employees at risk of being terminated, who may have valuable information about US critical infrastructure and vital government bureaucracy, two of the sources said. At least two countries have already set up recruitment websites and begun aggressively targeting federal employees on LinkedIn, two of the sources said.

The adversaries think the employees “are at their most vulnerable right now,” another of the sources said. “Out of a job, bitter about being fired, etc.”

“It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see that these cast aside federal workers with a wealth of institutional knowledge represent staggeringly attractive targets to the intelligence services of our competitors and adversaries,” a third source familiar with the recent US assessments told CNN.

CNN has reached out to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as well as the embassies of China and Russia in Washington for comment.

Fuck you Mango!

Trump and Zelensky meeting devolves into shouting match

From CNN's Kevin Liptak

A remarkable shouting match broke out in the Oval Office on Friday between President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, who was hoping to appeal to the US for continued security assistance during his trip to Washington.

Raising their voices, Trump and Zelensky — along with the Vice President JD Vance — engaged in a tense back-and-forth about the nature of US support, and whether Zelensky had demonstrated enough gratitude.

“You’re not really in good position right now,” Trump scolded Zelensky, raising his voice.

“You’re gambling with World War III,” the US president went on.

Vance called Zelensky “disrespectful” for trying to litigate the conflict in public.

Fire 800 employees

Trump officials fire 800 employees at weather forecasting and oceans agency

By Ella Nilsen and Tami Luhby

The Trump administration has its government-shrinking sights set on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where around 800 employees have been tapped for termination, according to two sources close to the agency.

More layoffs are possible Friday, one of the sources said, potentially costing the weather, climate and environmental agency more than a thousand employees by the end of the week.

Most divisions of the agency, which employs scientists and specialists in weather, oceans, biodiversity, climate and other research and planetary monitoring fields, were affected.

Probationary employees — those who have been in their jobs for a year or less, in most cases — were fired Thursday, a person inside the National Weather Service told CNN. There are between 350 and 375 employees with that status at the weather service, though it’s not clear how many of those were impacted; the person has heard there were some exemptions given to critical positions — likely life-threatening disaster forecasting roles, including hurricanes and severe thunderstorms.

National Weather Service employees are protected by a workers’ union, which was trying Thursday night to contact affected employees. Some employees who were fired said on social media that they were going to explore their legal options.

The people who were charged with conducting the terminations seemed to have acted in a way that would minimize paper trails, a source close to NOAA said, making it difficult for others at the agency to know who was affected and leaving the word of firings to spread by word of mouth.

The terminated NOAA workers’ letters said, “The Agency finds you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and/or skills do not fit the Agency’s current needs.”

Many probationary workers at some federal agencies who were laid off earlier this month received letters that also said they were being let go because their performance has not been adequate to justify further employment – regardless of whether they had good reviews.

‘Protect lives and property’

The National Weather Service’s mission is to “protect lives and property.”

The terminations are a blow to an agency that has been understaffed for years, even as the climate crisis accelerates and extreme weather becomes more frequent. Critics of the administration’s plan to slash the agency — a directive that was outlined in Project 2025 — have said layoffs would further cripple America’s ability to accurately forecast hurricanes, tornadoes and other costly, deadly extreme weather.

Meteorologists and computer engineers across NOAA were impacted, including at the Hurricane Research Division, where employees work to increase the accuracy of hurricane forecasts. Andrew Hazelton, a researcher with a PhD in meteorology, was one of the employees terminated Thursday, he said on social media. His role was to evaluate hurricane forecasts and improve the physics in the models that the National hurricane Center uses to track the storms.

“I enjoy meteorology because weather affects everyone, and there’s always so much to learn,” Hazelton is quoted as saying in his NOAA bio. “Growing up in Florida, I experienced several hurricanes, and it thrills me to be able to study and analyze them in my career.”

Other departments in which roles were terminated include the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, and the division that develops and improves the United States’ weather models.

Zachary Labe was one such modeler that was terminated.

“My job was to strengthen NOAA’s use of machine learning and AI for subseasonal-to-decadal weather and climate prediction,” Labe said on X.

Zelensky learned how to play the mango....

How Zelensky learned the art of the deal and got to visit Trump

Analysis by Stephen Collinson

Things change fast in Donald Trump’s world.

A few days ago, the US president falsely branded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator” who started Russia’s war in Ukraine and had “no cards” to play.

But on Friday the Ukrainian war hero will get a full White House welcome.

“We’re going to have a very good meeting. … We’re going to get along really well. OK. We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him,” Trump said Thursday.

Zelensky has had his own epiphany.

Last week, he accused Trump of ushering Russian President Vladimir Putin out of isolation after the US sent his officials to peace talks in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine. And he warned that the US president was living in a “disinformation space.”

But Zelensky has learned a critical lesson: Give Trump the win.

The Ukrainian president is traveling to Washington to sign an agreement for the US to exploit Ukraine’s rare earth mineral resources. The first draft of the deal looked a lot like colonial-style pillage being forced upon a desperate nation; Zelensky refused to sign it, warning he couldn’t sell out his nation’s wealth. Trump had claimed he could make half a trillion dollars to pay back US taxpayers for the military and financial lifeline to Ukraine after the Russian invasion.

The latest version appears far less onerous for Ukraine — which initiated discussions with the US last year about using its mineral stocks to finance the rebuilding of its devastated cities and infrastructure. There’s talk of a joint reconstruction fund but no mention of Trump’s initial claim for a $500 billion value — which was a perfect metaphor for a foreign policy vision that sees the world as a real estate deal.

Perhaps. But even if he’s managed to remove the most punitive aspects of the proposed deal, the truth is that Zelensky had little choice. He’s trying to force his way back into the peace talks. And if Zelensky’s first visit with Trump since his reelection cools fears Ukraine is set to be sold out, it may also hold the possibility of a long-term US relationship with the country – a prospect that seemed unlikely only a few days ago.

Zelensky is styling the agreement as only a framework for a future pact — largely because he’s trying to leverage Ukraine’s mineral wealth for future US security guarantees he sees as vital to the survival of any eventual peace deal.

So why the thaw?

Trump offered a clue earlier this week during a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.

“I do deals. My whole life is deals,” Trump said.

Just because the rare earth minerals deal with Ukraine seems likely to fall short of the president’s expectations, it doesn’t mean that he won’t market it as an extraordinary victory for himself and Americans.

“We’re going to be signing an agreement, which will be a very big agreement,” the president said before a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

Trump’s zeal for a deal even led him to conveniently forget his previous claim that Zelensky — against whom he bears a grudge because the Ukrainian president was on the other end of the call that led to his first impeachment — was a dictator.

“Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that. Next question?” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday, with the hint of a smirk.

Trump insists he trusts Putin

A lot might have changed between Zelensky and Trump in recent days.

But nothing has changed between Trump and Putin, and the US leader’s latest display of complete trust in the Russian leader on Thursday set off a huge, flashing alarm bell about the kind of deal he might try to do with Russia.

“I think he’ll keep his word. I’ve spoken to him, I’ve known him for a long time now, you know?” Trump said in the Oval Office alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “I don’t believe he is going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back when we make a deal.”

There’s an argument that only Trump among Western leaders could get Putin to the table and end a war that has inflicted a devastating toll among civilians, destroyed vast swaths of Ukraine and rocked the world. And if the president secures a just and lasting peace, he’ll deserve the Nobel Prize he craves.

But there’s tangible fear among US allies in Europe that Trump will settle for any deal with the Russian leader that validates his illegal conquest of about 20% of Ukraine’s territory, sets the table for an even worse war in the future, and tempts Putin to try to bite off another chunk of Europe – perhaps the Baltic states.

Both Starmer and Macron this week made the point in stark terms in front of Trump.

“We have to get it right,” Starmer said during a press conference with Trump on Thursday. “There’s a famous slogan in the United Kingdom from after the Second World War that is that we have to win the peace. And that’s what we must do now, because it can’t be peace that rewards the aggressor, or that gives encouragement to regimes like Iran.”

Macron tried to impress upon Trump the impossibility of doing a deal with the Russian leader, reliving his frustration over his dealings with Putin before the invasion. “I had several discussions, especially (at the) beginning of 2022, several times, 7 hours with President Putin. Fifteen days before the launching of the attack, he denied everything,” Macron said.

There’s no reason for Trump to believe in Putin’s good faith. The last five US administrations have all tried to reset relations with Russia and its strongman leader. Each attempt failed. And Putin has repeatedly broken his word – most recently when he denied he had any plan to invade Ukraine, then did.

Trump’s willingness to take the Russian president at his word – and the possibility that could lead to appeasement rather than a solid, lasting peace deal – worries many former senior officials.

“I think it’s important for the president, and I understand he’s trying to get Putin to the table, but he has got to know that Putin is not trustworthy and that anything he does has to be verified,” former CIA director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Thursday.

Retired Adm. James Stavridis, the former NATO supreme commander, added: “I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him,” adding that history shows why only US security guarantees could secure a peace deal.

Stavridis paraphrased the message Trump should spell out to Putin when they meet – possibly in the next few weeks. “Tell him, ‘The day you reinvade is the day we bring Ukraine in NATO,’” he said. “Or, ‘The day you reinvade is the day US troops will join the French and the British troops in Ukraine.’”

Trump may be listening to such viewpoints — but given his volatility and inconsistency, it’s often hard to be sure.

“It’s a — trust and verify, let’s call it that,” the president said Thursday. “I know a lot of people that you would say no chance that they would ever deceive you, and they’re the worst people in the world. I know others that you would guarantee they would deceive you and you know what? They’re 100 percent honorable. So, you never know what you’re getting.”

Starmer lays it on thick

Starmer’s visit was an example of the show that European leaders are being forced to put on to try to reach a president who is threatening to tear down an 80-year-old international liberal order in place since the end of World War II.

The prime minister, a disciplined and reserved former barrister, is not known for political theatrics. But he made a great show of pulling a letter out of his pocket in the Oval Office from King Charles III inviting Trump for a state visit.

“The answer is yes. Your country is a fantastic country,” the delighted president said and praised the king, the son of the late Queen Elizabeth II, who hosted Trump at a state visit in 2017. “He’s a great gentleman. A great, great gentleman. Oh,” Trump said, holding up the letter. “That’s quite a signature, isn’t it? Beautiful. And he’s a beautiful man, a wonderful man.”

Starmer, in one of the most unrestrained efforts to stroke Trump’s ego of any foreign leader so far in his second term, laid it on thick. “It’s an invitation for a second state visit. This is really special. This has never happened before. This is unprecedented.”

The British prime minister may find out that flattery will sometimes get you nowhere with Trump. But as it stands, the destiny of Ukraine may be on a tightrope between the pomp and pageantry of a trip to see the king on the one hand, and on the other, Putin — to whom the US president often genuflects.

But one veteran British political observer was appalled by the spectacle.

“It was humiliating in a way,” Vince Cable, a former Cabinet minister and former leader of the Liberal Democrats, told CNN’s Jim Sciutto on CNN International. “I suppose one has to admire the fact that he’s willing to accept this humiliation to achieve some kind of political result,” Cable said of Starmer.

“It embarrasses me as a British person to see this kind of abasement,” Cable said. “But you know, if he can achieve anything, I guess we’ll just have to accept that’s the way it’s necessary with this president.”

AI Video

Trump Posts AI Video of Ethnically Cleansed Gaza

The president of the United States is using AI slop to sell war crimes and potential genocide.

Noah Lanard

On Tuesday, just before midnight, Donald Trump posted a grotesque AI-generated video on social media that depicts a future Gaza as his proposed “Riviera of the Middle East.” A sleek palm-tree-lined boulevard, in the video, is watched over by an enormous gold statue of the American president. Palestinians, it seems, are absent—aside from maybe a few belly dancers. In their place, a yassified Elon Musk eats hummus while Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lounge by the pool. A chintzy “Trump Gaza” hotel and cloying chant of “Trump Gaza is finally here!” round out the fantasy of Trump’s promise to criminally expel roughly two million people and take ownership of the enclave.

The video’s aesthetics, which mix the glass towers of Miami with the Dear-Leaderism of Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad, distract from a more fundamental reality: The president of the United States is using AI slop to sell war crimes and a potential genocide he considers a real estate deal. It is pitching ethnic cleansing with a meme.

Gazans, most of whom are refugees descended from residents expelled from what is now Israel, have made abundantly clear that they do not want to be forced from their land once again. Nor, as Trump has called for doing, do they want to be barred from ever returning—particularly to make way for an American-owned Mediterranean style escape for global elites.

The only way to accomplish Trump’s plan would be to commit atrocities that evoke some of the darkest moments in contemporary history. And it would require doing so in the wake of a war in which Israel—with the help of American bombs—has reduced much of Gaza to rubble and killed more than 62,000 Palestinians, including more than 17,000 children.

On paper, Trump’s plan is being taken seriously by his underlings. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, are talking about bringing real estate executives together to hatch a plan to rebuild the enclave. The pair reportedly want to hold a White House summit devoted to the topic that, according to the Journal, “would include a public display, potentially with large cranes and other showy pieces of equipment.” The planning follows Trump’s claim during the campaign that Gaza could be “better than Monaco” because it has “the best location in the Middle East, the best water, the best everything.”

For now, Trump’s vision of America controlling an ethnically cleansed Gaza appears to be mostly fantasy. The more immediate risk is the signal sent to Netanyahu and his hard-right allies. Extreme Jewish supremacists like Knesset member Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been calling for Israel to resettle Gaza, now know they have even less reason to fear that the United States will do anything if and when they steal even more land from Palestinians.

Biggest Winner

Perhaps the Biggest Winner in Germany’s Election: Nuclear Power

The victorious conservatives and the surging far-right both are big fans.

Alexander C. Kaufman

Germany’s conservatives won the national election on Sunday, while the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party nearly doubled its share of the vote from the last election to secure a strong second-place finish.

Nuclear energy may be the big winner.

Europe’s largest economy shuttered its last reactors two years ago in what was meant to be an irreversible exit from atomic energy. But surging energy prices and electricity demand are driving calls to revive Germany’s nuclear power industry.

As the victorious Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its sister party in Bavaria, the Christian Social Union, wrote in their party manifesto, “We are resolved to stick with the nuclear energy option, counting on research on nuclear energy in its 4th and 5th generation, small modular reactors, and fusion reactors. We are assessing the resumption of operation of the recently-shut-down nuclear power plants.”

The CDU’s leader and Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said last month he regrets withdrawing from nuclear power. “We are examining whether we should build these small modular reactors—perhaps together with France,” Merz told the weekly magazine Der Spiegel.

In an interview last week on CNBC, Klaus Wiener, a CDU lawmaker in the Bundestag, called the country’s nuclear phaseout “a huge mistake.”

“They were technically sound, they were doing well, and safe—but the government has, for ideological reasons, decided to shut them down,” he said. “We should have used them longer. That would have made a big difference in energy prices and supply.”

Yet Wiener cautioned that turning the shuttered plants back on was unlikely, echoing statements Germany’s biggest utilities made in recent calls with investors. “Now unfortunately, three years down the road, these nuclear power plants, they can be recovered but that would be very hard,” he said. “It takes three to five years, possibly, and it’ll take a lot of money. If we want to reengage again with nuclear energy, it will not be about this generation of nuclear power plants.”

That the CDU—the party once led by former Chancellor Angela Merkel, who oversaw the nuclear exit—is now willing to support atomic energy is a major shift. A poll taken in 2022 found 53 percent of Germans opposed quitting nuclear. By the eve of the final shutdowns the following April, 59 percent said the phaseout was “wrong.”

While it’s likely only a small factor in its sobering rise to power, the AfD—whose ties to neo-Nazis and defenses of the Gestapo proved too radical even for their former political allies in France (though not for Elon Musk or Vice President JD Vance) has long been the lone party representing that majority view. Founded two years after the Fukushima disaster, the AfD previously stood as the only party to oppose the phaseout pushed by everyone from the center-right, which initiated the shut-downs, to the center-left and Greens—under whose leadership the last plants closed.

Now the AfD is pushing to completely reverse the closures and undo policies that support renewables such as wind and solar power. (Nuclear is not renewable, because the uranium fuel is spent in the power-generation process.)

“What our government is doing…they’re destroying—they’re blowing them up—our nuclear plants,” Beatrix von Storch, an AfD member of the Bundestag, said in an interview on Deutsche Welle last month. “We can see our energy is no longer stable. It’s far too expensive.”

Merz has ruled out any coalition government with the AfD. Last month, however, the German parliament narrowly approved a nonbinding resolution Merz put forward to call to turn away more migrants, thanks to support from AfD lawmakers.

The big question now is whether Merz will lower his “firewall” against working with the AfD to bring back nuclear power.

Putin’s Investment

Vladimir Putin’s Investment in Donald Trump Pays Off Bigly

After secretly helping Trump’s last three presidential campaigns, Russia is getting its money’s worth from him.

David Corn

Talk about a good ROI. Vladimir Putin’s investment in Donald Trump is sure paying off.

In recent days, Trump has promoted Moscow’s horrendously false talking points, excoriating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator” and blaming Ukraine for the brutal war that Putin, a real dictator, launched. He also kicked off talks with Russia to end the war and left out Ukraine. It’s hard to imagine a better scenario for Putin. And at the United Nations, the Trump administration proposed a resolution on the war that declined to hold Russia responsible for the conflict. (It was amended to include language blaming Moscow and then passed, with Washington abstaining.)

Plus, the chaos caused by Trump and Elon Musk’s blitzkrieg against US government agencies could well redound to the Kremlin’s advantage. With national security agencies—the CIA, the FBI, and others—and the Pentagon under siege due to this assault, their capabilities to defend the nation from threats posed by Russia or other adversaries will be diminished. All the Trump/Musk-generated conflict is in sync with Putin’s long-standing aim to sow discord in the United States.

Moreover, on her first day in office, Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which sought to counter secret operations waged by Russia, China, and other foes to affect US elections. She also cut back enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a tool used by the feds to neutralize malign influence and disinformation operations. And now the FBI is being run by Kash Patel, a MAGA provocateur who has hailed the January 6 rioters and who has echoed Putin’s phony claim that Moscow did not clandestinely intervene in the 2016 campaign and assist Trump.

What a good deal for Putin: Trump siding with him on Ukraine, legitimizing his tyrannical reign, and breaking with Western allies. The US government and national security community in turmoil. Washington undermining its standing throughout the world and diminishing its global influence. And a US administration opening the door for more Russian covert attacks and holding Moscow blameless for its previous assaults on American democracy. No wonder Putin did what he could to help Trump win the presidency—not once but thrice. 

The Trumpers will tell you that “Russia, Russia, Russia” was a hoax, a witch hunt and a diabolical Deep State plot. That’s another con that Trump whipped up, with a boatload of help from Patel. But as the Trump-Putin relationship returns to prominence and as an American sellout of Ukraine looms, it’s important to keep in mind that Trump sits in the White House partly because of Putin’s skullduggery and his own betrayal of America.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Just ask Marco Rubio, who’s now Trump’s secretary of state. As I’ve pointed out before in this newsletter, in August 2020, Rubio, then the GOP chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, released a bipartisan 966-page report on the Trump-Russia scandal. It’s the most comprehensive public account of Putin’s attack on the 2016 election. It concludes that Putin “ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president” and that he did so “to help the Trump Campaign…and undermine the US democratic process.”

The report points out that “the Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia”—that is, Trump helped cover up Putin’s culpability. The report also reveals that Paul Manafort, the chief executive of Trump’s 2016 campaign, secretly met with a Russian intelligence office who was possibly connected to Russia’s hack-and-leak operation and shared private campaign information with him. (Does that sound like possible collusion?)

So no hoax. Putin schemed to place Trump in the White House, and Trump aided and abetted the operation by falsely denying its existence.

The Russian operation helped Trump win in 2016. In the final weeks of a tight election, it produced a steady stream of damaging leaks about Clinton that impeded her campaign. The Kremlin also ran secret projects that tried to assist Trump in 2020 and 2024. What’s the source for that? The first Trump administration. In 2020, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center and the Treasury Department each publicly disclosed that Russia was conducting a disinformation campaign spreading false information about Joe Biden’s actions in Ukraine to smear the former vice president and Trump’s main rival. Rudy Giuliani, then a lawyer for Trump, peddled this phony, Russia-generated propaganda to try to undermine Biden’s presidential campaign.

Such bunk became the basis for the long-running and false GOP narrative that Biden was corrupt. This line of attack failed in 2020, but the Republicans stuck with it. After they won control of the House of Representatives in 2022, they hyped the Biden allegations cooked up by Russian agents and used this disinformation to try to discredit Biden with the false charge that he headed a “Biden crime family.” They cited this bogus claim as the basis for an impeachment investigation. That probe went nowhere, but for years, the Republicans and MAGA-aligned media used the Kremlin-orchestrated smear to advance the impression that Biden was crooked—a sham that Trump enthusiastically promoted and exploited in the 2024 campaign.

Russia’s effort last year to help Trump was not a secret. In the spring of 2024, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines publicly testified before Congress that Russia was once again waging information warfare to influence the presidential election, obviously to benefit Trump. This would come to include a host of disinformation projects. But none of this became major news stories—a true failure of the media. And, it would turn out, one of the key false allegations the Republicans and their media mouthpieces pushed—that Biden and his son had covertly pocketed $10 million in bribes from a Ukrainian energy firm—originated with an FBI informant with ties to Russian intelligence officers. (In December, this informant, Alexander Smirnov, pleaded guilty to lying to the bureau about this supposed scheme.) 

There’s been no good review of the operations the Kremlin implemented to swing the 2024 election to Trump. And with Trump in charge, Patel at the FBI, John Ratcliffe (another Trump loyalist) heading the CIA, and Tulsi Gabbard serving as the director of national intelligence, there’s as much chance of one being ordered as Trump attending a racial sensitivity seminar. Whatever the Russians did last year to help Trump will be buried by what we can now call the Trump Deep State.

There’s certainly a lot more to the Trump-Putin connection than this brief rundown. In 2013, when Trump announced he’d be holding his Miss Universe contest in Moscow, he tweeted about Putin becoming “his new best friend.” (Putin was already recognized at this point as an antidemocratic thug.) While in Moscow for the event, Trump was obsessed with meeting Putin—which never happened. But the Miss Universe pageant netted Trump $2.3 million—mostly because his partner in the endeavor, a Russian oligarch who was close to Putin, paid Trump a very generous licensing fee and absorbed millions in losses. (Was this a sweetheart deal with a pro-Putin billionaire?)

During the 2016 campaign, Trump tried to set up a megadeal to develop a tower in Moscow and requested help from Putin’s office. (He never told voters about this.) And his top campaign aides met with a Russian emissary after being informed the Kremlin wanted to secretly help his campaign. Of course, Trump has a long history of fawning remarks about Putin, and top administration officials during his first term wondered about his unending and bizarre affinity for Putin. (This past week the Mirror reported that a former Kazakh intelligence chief, who claimed he had served in the KGB, said that Trump was recruited by the KGB in 1987. There is no way to evaluate this claim.)

The Trump-Russia tale has largely been smothered by Trump’s endless screams of “witch hunt” and “hoax.” But as Trump moves to help Putin obtain an advantageous end to the cruel and criminal war he initiated, the full context of their relationship ought to be center stage. Yet it’s not been.

One example: Last week, the New York Times published a story reporting on Trump’s “familiar pattern” of “elevating Kremlin talking points”—an accurate characterization. But not until halfway into the piece did it refer to Putin’s attack on the 2016 election. The article said that the Senate Intelligence Committee report had concluded that the Russian government “engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.” But the Times did not point out that the committee declared that this operation had been conducted to help Trump triumph. The newspaper noted the Russian endeavor had “damaged” Hillary Clinton’s campaign but said nothing about Trump’s attempt to cover up Russia’s role. The Times also did not mention Putin’s secret efforts in 2020 and 2024 to assist Trump. It downplayed the whole Trump-Russia saga.

Trump’s love affair with Putin has been something of a mystery. Less mysterious is the basic fact that Putin helped Trump reach the White House initially and mounted covert actions in 2020 and 2024 to boost Trump’s chances. What could be more relevant at a time when Trump is demonizing Zelenskyy and trying to broker a resolution of the war that will favor Putin and his regime over a democratically elected ally of the United States?

Putin wanted Trump in the White House, and he screwed with American elections to make that happen. Now Trump is acting like Putin’s handmaid—and pursuing policies and creating discord that could well undermine American democracy and fray, if not shatter, the Western alliance. MAGA refuses to see this. Congressional Republicans won’t face it. And the media doesn’t fully cover this all-important backstory. Whether or not there are secrets to the Trump-Putin relationship that we don’t know, it’s clear that Putin made a clever bet, and it looks like he’s about to cash in.

Halts Fraud Prosecution.... Wonderful.... NOT!

SEC Halts Fraud Prosecution of Chinese Crypto Bro Whose Purchases Enriched Trump

Justin Sun’s token buys have reportedly earned the president more than $50 million.

Rebecca Crosby, Judd Legum

In December, Popular Information reported that Chinese crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun purchased $30 million in crypto tokens from World Liberty Financial (WLF), a new venture backed by President Donald Trump and his family. Sun’s purchase resulted in a cash windfall for Trump. On Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Sun sent a joint letter to a federal judge, asking for a stay of Sun’s case. Today, the judge granted the SEC’s request.

In March 2023, the SEC charged Sun and three of his companies, accusing him of marketing unregistered securities and “fraudulently manipulating the secondary market” for a crypto token. The SEC accused Sun of wash trading, which involves buying and selling a token quickly to fraudulently manufacture artificial interest. Sun was also charged with paying celebrities, including Lindsay Lohan, Jake Paul, and Soulja Boy, for endorsing his crypto “without disclosing their compensation,” which violates federal law.

A few weeks after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Sun publicly announced that he had become WLF’s largest investor, buying $30 million of its tokens. Sun added that his company, TRON, was “committed to making America great again.”

Sun’s purchase put millions in Trump’s pocket. WLF was entitled to “$30 million of initial net protocol revenue” in a reserve “to cover operating expenses, indemnities, and obligations.” After the reserve was met, a company owned by Trump would receive “75% of the net protocol revenues.” Sun’s purchase covered the entire reserve. As of December 1, this amounted to $18 million for Trump—75 percent of the revenues of all other tokens sold at the time. Sun also joined WLF as an advisor. While the purchase benefited Trump, WLF tokens are essentially worthless for Sun, as they are non-transferable and locked indefinitely.

Nevertheless, Sun has since invested another $45 million in WLF, bringing his total investment to $75 million. This means Sun’s purchases have sent more than $50 million to Trump, Bloomberg reported. Sun has also continued to shower Trump with praise. On January 22, Sun posted on X, “if I have made any money in cryptocurrency, all credit goes to President Trump.”

Now, the SEC seems poised to negotiate a favorable settlement with Sun or drop the case entirely. Yesterday, the SEC and Sun filed a joint request for a 60-day stay in the case against Sun to “allow the Parties to explore a potential resolution.” Sun seems pleased. He responded to news of the request for a stay on X, posting three handshake emojis.

Last week, Brian Armstrong, CEO of the crypto trading platform Coinbase, announced that the SEC was dismissing its lawsuit against the company. The move came after Coinbase boosted Trump’s crypto meme coin, donated $75 million to a pro-Trump Super PAC, and chipped in $1 million to Trump’s inauguration celebration.

Firings of federal workers

Judge blocks Trump administration’s mass firings of federal workers

Story by Salvador Rizzo

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Office of Personnel Management to rescind directives that initiated the mass firing of probationary workers across the government, ruling that the terminations were probably illegal, as a group of labor unions argued in court.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered OPM to rescind its previous directives to more than two dozen agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Science Foundation and others identified in a lawsuit. The ruling — a temporary restraint on the government that will be revisited in the coming weeks — is one of the biggest roadblocks so far to President Donald Trump’s effort to slash the federal workforce.

“Congress has given the authority to hire and fire to the agencies themselves. The Department of Defense, for example, has statutory authority to hire and fire,” Alsup said from the bench as he handed down the ruling Thursday evening in federal court in San Francisco. “The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe, to hire and fire employees at another agency. They can hire and fire their own employees.”

It was unclear how soon and whether the ruling might result in tangible benefits for federal workers who already have been let go. An OPM spokesperson said the agency had no immediate comment. In his remarks from the bench, the judge specifically blocked the Defense Department from proceeding with an effort to fire civilian employees on Friday. But he did not say what he expected to happen in detail at other agencies. A written order is expected later, and the judge said he would hold another court hearing on March 13.

A group of union plaintiffs and advocacy organizations led by the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents about 800,000 federal workers nationwide, argued in legal filings that OPM broke the law when it ordered government agencies in mid-February to fire all probationary employees, defined as those who are in the first or second year on the job. In some cases, longtime workers who start new positions also are classified as probationary.

“This ruling by Judge Alsup is an important initial victory for patriotic Americans across this country who were illegally fired from their jobs by an agency that had no authority to do so,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. “These are rank-and-file workers who joined the federal government to make a difference in their communities, only to be suddenly terminated due to this administration’s disdain for federal employees and desire to privatize their work.”

Federal workers who had been fired in recent days reacted with joy to the judge’s ruling, as many attempted to parse whether it could get them their jobs back.

“That’s amazing. It’s not surprising one bit, because these actions have been illegal from the very get-go,” said Gregg Bafundo, 53, who until Valentine’s Day held a job with the U.S. Forest Service in Washington state. “My concern is whether the administration will follow the rule of law, as they’ve proven unwilling to do so so far.”

Bafundo said that he had begun applying to other jobs but would love to return to his old one if the ruling holds up.

The United States employs about 200,000 probationary workers, which represents about 10 percent of its civilian federal workforce. Tens of thousands already have been dismissed, often with a template email provided by OPM that falsely cites performance reasons for the terminations, the unions said. Trump and other administration officials have said the cuts are meant to reduce the size of the federal workforce.

“OPM, the federal agency charged with implementing this nation’s employment laws, in one fell swoop has perpetrated one of the most massive employment frauds in the history of this country, telling tens of thousands of workers that they are being fired for performance reasons, when they most certainly were not,” attorneys for the unions said in a court filing.

Many of the employees “had received excellent performance reviews” and were terminated without input from their supervisors, the unions said. Swept up in the cuts were vital employees in charge of forest-fire prevention in California, as well as Federal Aviation Administration workers in airports across the country, staff members providing support services to veterans and researchers at the National Science Foundation.

“OPM has no legal authority to order the termination of any employee at a federal agency, let alone all federal employees nationwide,” an attorney for the plaintiffs, Danielle Leonard, argued at the hearing Thursday.

In response to the lawsuit, the Justice Department and the acting OPM director, Charles Ezell, said the unions lacked legal standing to challenge the firings in court and should take their claims to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, a panel of presidential appointees, or the Merit Systems Protection Board. The latter board halted the terminations of six probationary employees in a ruling issued this week, which could have wider implications for the larger pool of fired probationary employees.

The Justice Department argued that the president has “inherent constitutional authority” to decide “how best to manage the Executive Branch, including whom to hire and remove, what conditions to place on continued employment, and what processes to employ in making these determinations.” Ezell said in a court filing that “only the highest-performing probationers in mission-critical areas demonstrate the necessary fitness or qualifications for continued employment.”

An assistant U.S. attorney, Kelsey Helland, argued Thursday that some agencies, including the Justice Department, simply ignored OPM’s communications about firing probationary employees. He said the unions and advocacy groups were “conflating a request from OPM with an order from OPM.”

The Trump administration attorneys also claimed in court papers that OPM had not ordered federal agencies to fire specific employees and did not create a “mass termination program” but rather a “focused review” process. Alsup was skeptical of that argument; multiple agency officials — from the Defense and Agriculture departments, the IRS, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Science Foundation — have said OPM ordered them to fire probationary workers, according to court records.

“How could so much of the workforce be amputated, suddenly, overnight? It’s so irregular and so widespread and so aberrant in the history of our country. How could this all happen with each agency deciding on its own to do something so aberrational?” said Alsup, who was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1999. “I don’t believe it.”

The unions said in a legal filing that “[n]o federal agency had announced any terminations of probationary employees in the positions each agency carefully vetted, authorized, and hired employees to perform, prior to OPM’s order.” They added that OPM barely gave officials a chance to justify keeping probationary workers: “OPM required agencies to adhere to a 200-character limit in any explanation provided as to why any individual employee should be retained by the agency.”

A federal judge in D.C. last week denied a similar request for a temporary restraining order filed by government worker unions, ruling that he did not have legal jurisdiction to hear the case and that the unions should take their challenge to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Trump fired the chairwoman of that agency before her term was set to expire in July. In the meantime, the authority consists of one Republican appointee and one Democratic appointee.

“Probationary employees are the lifeblood of these agencies,” the judge said Thursday. “They come in at the low level and work their way up, and that’s how we renew ourselves and reinvent ourselves.”

February 27, 2025

Mass protests 'can' combat evil

Elon Musk, Apartheid, and America’s New Boycott Movement

If you think mass protests can’t combat evil, remember what we did in the 1980s.

Clara Jeffery

In the fall of 1984, when I was a senior in high school in Washington, DC, the protests at the South African Embassy began. Civil rights leaders met with the ambassador of South Africa on Thanksgiving Eve. Timed for maximum press coverage, that meeting became a sit-in, and that sit-in launched a movement. Soon, there were protests at consulates across the country. College students held rallies, built “shantytowns,” and pushed their schools to divest.

Area high school kids like me got in on protesting the embassy too. And we had a soundtrack. “Free Nelson Mandela” had been released by the Specials in March. The leader of that British ska band, Jerry Dammers, later admitted he didn’t know much about Mandela before he went to an anti-apartheid concert in the UK, where a long-simmering boycott movement was rolling into a boil. The DC music scene was pretty wild then—a bouillabaisse of go-go, R&B, punk, New Wave; there was breakdancing in the hallways during lunch hour—and for some of us, ska was sort of a unified field theory. Musically but also culturally. (If you have a racist friend / now is the time, now is the time for your friendship to end.)

But it wasn’t just kids who cosplayed in checked socks or porkpie hats. In 1985, a month after I started college, Artists Against Apartheid recorded Steven Van Zandt’s “(I Ain’t Going to Play) Sun City”—essentially the music world launching its own boycott on South Africa. The song was not (like, at all) great, but the wild cross-genre supergroup—DJ Kool Herc, Lou Reed, Bonnie Raitt, Gil Scott-Heron, Pat Benatar, Bono, and Miles Davis to name but a very, very few—guaranteed continual rotation on a relatively new cultural phenomenon: MTV.

We were getting a collective education: Because South Africa was so dependent on Black labor and exports, if industrialized nations withheld trade and investments, we could backstop Black South Africans who’d been directly resisting the Afrikaner regime for decades. So, suddenly, amazingly, we did. By 1986, Congress had imposed sanctions on South Africa and banned direct flights to it, Coca-Cola became the first major company to pull out of South Africa. Sports teams joined the musicians in refusing to play there. Divestment battles raged on campuses and boardrooms for the rest of the ’80s. And they worked. South Africa’s economy ground to a near halt. Mandela was freed in 1990, and negotiations to wind down apartheid began. By 1994, free elections were held and Mandela became president.

I found myself reconstructing this history recently, as the protests and boycotts against Tesla began. Do you need a reminder as to why? Okay: Tesla CEO Elon Musk—the world’s richest man, and Trump’s biggest campaign donor; an unelected, ketamine-happy, video game cheating, transphobic, subsidy–guzzling, deadbeat dad—is leading a bunch of scythe-wielding mini-me shitposters through innards of the federal government, harvesting and compromising the most essential data of every taxpayer, government contractor, and NGO in America. Oh, and he’s also supporting fascists, using apparent Nazi salutes, and blasting antisemitic and racist theories to his millions of followers.

Anyway, the dude is bad news. And he’s threatening to use his hundreds of billions—again, money he would not have without US subsidies—to take out any politician, foreign or domestic, who opposes his and Trump’s agenda, which is a mix of toxic masculinity, grift, and a seeming desire to return to a gauzy form of racial apartheid.

Words like “apartheid” and “Nazi” shouldn’t be tossed around lightly. Musk has denied he’s a Nazi, and that his salute was a Nazi salute. But clear-eyed commentators aren’t buying it, and white nationalists like Nick Fuentes are downright jubilant: “That was a straight up, like, Sieg Heil, like loving Hitler energy.” And then there’s Musk’s history. His maternal grandparents were, according to Musk’s own father, members of the Canadian neo-Nazi party who decamped to South Africa because they were fans of racial oppression. Musk has been pretty mum about what it was like to grow up in South Africa and the influence that had on him. (Today he holds US, Canadian, and South African citizenship.) But the fact is that many white South Africans who left at that time did so because their position of privilege was coming to an end.

In any case, once in the States, Musk joined forces with fellow South Africans Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and Roelof Botha—grandson of former South African leader Pik Botha; now the head of venture capital giant Sequoia Capital—to form PayPal. And they revealed themselves to be racial reactionaries. Thiel (who, according to his biographer, once called critiques of apartheid “overblown”) and Sacks wrote “The Case Against Affirmative Action” for Stanford Magazine in 1996. They’ve led concerted, organized attacks on DEI. Musk, who was under federal investigation for racial discrimination in his Tesla factories—that is, until Trump took over—is supporting extremist movements across the world, using Holocaust Remembrance Day to tell Germans they should no longer feel “guilt” over it, and echoing South Africans who claim they’re victims of “white genocide.”

So yes, some people are too quick to label people they don’t like as Nazis. But also, people who don’t want to be called Nazis should avoid giving Nazi salutes.

Now I want to talk about something else that was happening in the mid-’80s. Something else that gathered up musical supergroups and was big on MTV.

It was famine. In Ethiopia, between 1983 and 1985, maybe a million people died. The nightly news was full of images of dying skeleton children, all the time. The causes were complex, but the immediate answer was simple: food. Again, it was musicians who rallied the world to the cause, with huge concerts like Live Aid, famous for Freddie Mercury’s last transcendent performance, and cross-genre protest song collaborations. The Brits, led by Bob Geldof (who also produced Live Aid), went first with “Do They Know It’s Christmas.” And then Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Quincy Jones, and Harry Belafonte gathered up a who’s-who of American singers for “We Are the World.” And yes, some of that plays as very cringe these days—Ethiopians are mostly Christian, for starters. And weren’t totally blind to it back then either, as someone who played Cyndi Lauper in a high school send-up of “We Are the World” can attest. 

But when you’re trying to rally the world to the cause of dying children, corny works. All these efforts did raise millions for food relief, and, more importantly, focused the world’s attention. In 1985, the United States Agency for International Development created the Famine Early Warning Systems Network so the world would never be caught so flat-footed about famine again.

Until now. Musk has gutted USAID, and its early famine warning system specifically, even as starvation stalks the people of Sudan. Thanks to his DOGE bros, almost 80 percent of emergency food kitchens in Sudan have been closed, and “people are screaming from hunger in the streets,” reports the BBC.

What does the world’s richest man have against the agency that helps the world’s poorest people? Well, it was investigating his satellite company Starlink’s contracts in Ukraine. But also, in their quest to cut trillions from the federal budget to finance tax cuts for billionaires like themselves, Musk and Trump have to believe they can get that money from things other than Social Security and Medicaid. So they’re tapping into of American’s collective misbelief that we spend about a quarter of the budget on foreign aid—in actuality, it is about 1 percent—to claim they can square that math. And they’re flooding the zone with disinformation with claims of USAID “waste and abuse,” because this is their playbook. Never mind that they clearly don’t know what USAID does, or that gutting it is also having devastating impacts on US farmers, who grow a lot of the food we provide as relief.

Who benefits from eviscerating USAID? Basically foreign dictators like Vladimir Putin, who hates that this “soft power” was part of America’s Ukrainian relief effort, or Xi Jinping, who sees our food aid to African countries as a plot to undermine China’s “belt and road” program of development. We don’t just lose moral stature when we renounce foreign aid, we lose our competitive advantage in global relations too. So when Trump states in an executive order that USAID efforts “destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries,” please realize that this is echoing the talking points of Putin and Xi.

But no matter, Musk and Trump wanted to start with what they saw as the weakest, wokest government agency, to slaughter it and hang it on a pike as a warning not to disobey the king.  Slashing USAID scratches a racist itch central to the MAGA cause. Let’s not forget how Trump slurred “shithole countries.” Trump, who says Hitler did some “great things,” and says he wants generals like Hitler had. Trump, who believes he has “good genes.” Trump, you know the list: housing discrimination, Central Park Five, birtherism, Mexican “rapists,” “very fine people,” “go back” where they “came” from, “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats.”

In the ’80s, the American public had a much more rudimentary understanding of colonialism’s dependence on racism than it does today. But even kids in high school knew that apartheid was wrong, and famine was wrong, and that these two things happening in Africa were somehow connected, and connected to America’s dark racial history, and to the music we listened to and the future we hoped we represented. Our parents didn’t have childhood friendships across races and sexes—that would have been mostly impossible. But we did. We were naive (the white kids far more than the Black kids, it must be said) but not wrong in feeling that, even as we eye-rolled and camped it up when we sang along, that we are the children…we’re saving our own lives / It’s true we’ll make a better day, just you and me.

On Valentine’s Day, Sheryl Crow put her Tesla on a flatbed and donated the sale’s proceeds to NPR. The following day, I went to the local Tesla dealership to witness the first in what has become an ongoing series of protests in San Francisco and across the country. The “Tesla Takedown” movement is, as such movements usually are, organized by an oddball coalition of folks, including documentary filmmaker Alex Winter (also “Bill” of Bill & Ted fame) and disinformation scholar Joan Donovan, who alleges that a donation from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative prompted Harvard to cancel her research on Meta’s role in online extremism. The goal is to get people to protest at dealerships, sell their cars, divest from any stock. Indivisible has joined the effort, organizing “Musk or Us” protests.

There’s a real strategy here: essentially that Tesla’s stock is wildly overpriced—it’s both an automaker and a memestock, as John Herman notes—and were it to approach a more reality-based level, Musk, who’s super leveraged, could see his fortune decline precipitously. That could push a shareholder revolt and also weaken his threat to use his vast fortune to fund a primary against anybody who opposes Trump. And in any case, people need a place to locate their anger and fear.

There are signs this is working. Tesla sales in Europe are catastrophically down—50 percent lower in January than from a year earlier, even as EV sales overall rose 34 percent. January sales were 12 percent down in California, too, and that’s before DOGE started playing havoc with the country. Tesla’s stock price has fallen 37 percent since its peak in December, knocking tens of billion off of Musk’s wealth; 23 percent of that is in the last few weeks. And people are taking their rage out on individual Teslas, stickering and even vandalizing “swasticars,” especially cybertrucks, which were already performing horribly, in terms of sales and just…performance.

Talking to protestors at the San Francisco dealership, I was struck by how many of them had never been to any kind of protest before. Some of them were Tesla owners. One guy told me he wasn’t able to sell his car right now, but he was posting to Tesla owner forums to tell people to turn off features so as to deny the company revenue, or to be an activist shareholder if they were one.

In less than two weeks, such protests have spread all over the country. The news is full of tales of Tesla owners with buyer’s remorse. Etsy shops are selling bumper stickers that say things like: “I bought this before I knew Elon was crazy.” On a walk through my neighborhood last weekend, I saw a woman purposefully lead her dog over to pee on a cybertruck, and a Tesla sedan with a handwritten sign that said: “Hi! I also think Elon sucks. I bought this car 5 years ago. Please stop keying my car for your protest. I agree with you [heart].” Less than half a block later I came across another Tesla sedan, freshly keyed. “We hate him too,” read a sign hung from the offices above the Tesla dealership showroom.

We are in early days. Trump has been in office just over a month. “Big Balls” and the rest of the DOGE marauders have only been at it a few weeks. Tesla protests are even newer. It’s possible that even if a boycott were to wipe out some of Musk’s wealth, sketchy government contracts for things like $400 million in armored Teslas, or a $2 billion FAA deal for Starlink, will more than make up for it. Mass movements require mass awareness, and we’re not collectively tuning into the same newscasts or music videos, and Musk meanwhile owns a disinformation factory. Boycotts rarely have the kind of impact activists hope for, they tend to be too diffuse or too hotly contested.

But opposition movements always seem hopeless until they’re not. Apartheid existed for decades and then came crashing down rapidly. We didn’t know that its heirs would be wreaking havoc on this country four decades later, but history isn’t an unbroken line that goes up and to the right. Some of the bad stuff comes back and has to be fought again.

The South Africa apartheid regime was defeated. Maybe one South African can be too.

Too pro-worker for the job?

Trump’s New Labor Secretary Is a Fig Leaf For His War on Workers

Some Democrats have high hopes for Lori Chavez-DeRemer. Good luck with that.

Alex Nguyen

Trump appointee Lori Chavez-DeRemer found herself facing a tight committee vote Thursday morning to head the Department of Labor. The question: was she too pro-worker for the job?

Apparently not.

On Thursday, the same Senate committee where the bill repeatedly died—Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)—voted to move forward her nomination to lead the federal Labor Department. Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) joined Republicans in support, offsetting Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) “no” vote. The Democratic support in committee means Chavez-DeRemer will almost undoubtedly pass the full Senate floor vote.

Chavez-DeRemer seemed to allay many of the Republican committee members’ fears during her Senate confirmation hearing last Wednesday—taking pains to demonstrate that she regretted her cosponsorship of the labor-friendly PRO Act, rhetorically turning her back on workers and suggesting that she’d fall in line with Trump’s anti-worker agenda. To Paul, she called state “right-to-work” laws a “fundamental tenet of labor laws, where states have the right to choose,” and disowned the bill’s limitations on such laws. 

In fact, Chavez-DeRemer said, she only backed the PRO Act to better represent her congressional district—and to be part of the conversation in Congress about labor. “I recognize that that bill was imperfect,” she told Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chair of the HELP Committee. “If confirmed, my job will be to implement President Trump’s policy decisions and my guiding principle will be President Trump’s guiding principle, ensuring a level playing field for businesses, unions, and, most importantly, the American worker.”

When Democrats introduced its first iteration, in 2019, the PRO Act—Protecting the Right to Organize—was the culmination of many labor advocates’ attempts to empower workers through increased union membership. Since unionization rates peaked at around one-third of the workforce in the 1950s—mostly due to legislation passed during the New Deal—those figures have steadily decreased, as waves of legislation have added obstacles to union participation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a body within the US Department of Labor that collects data on workers and the economy, union membership was down to 9.9 percent in 2024.

That first version of the PRO Act would have strengthened workers’ rights to organize by, in part, banning retaliation for labor-related whistleblowing and strikes, including sympathy strikes (now illegal), preventing many employers from countering organizing drives through strategies like mandatory meetings meant to intimidate employees into voting against unions, and establishing penalties for employers who flout the National Labor Relations Board.

Many Republicans, unsurprisingly, hated it. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) called it “radical, backward-looking legislation” that would “diminish the rights of workers and employers while harming the economy.” The National Restaurant Association said the bill was “essentially setting fire to billions in taxpayer dollars.” The PRO Act even split Democrats, including opposition by both of Arizona’s senators at the time—Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema—among others. “The way I make decisions on behalf of Arizona and for our constituents is by listening to the business leaders,” Sinema said to members of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce. 

After passing the House in February 2020, the bill died in committee. So did a second version the next year. But Lori Chavez-DeRemer, then a first-term GOP representative from Oregon, was one of just three Republicans to support its third version, in 2023-24, making her an altogether surprising—and, to some Democrats, promising—pick for Donald Trump’s Secretary of Labor.

The vote results were largely down to Chavez-DeRemer’s backers pitching her as a rare pro-labor Republican who could reach across the aisle and speak with both workers and employers. Her story was promising for some worker advocates—she is both the daughter of a Mexican-American Teamster, and the owner of a medical business that earns between $1 million and $5 million a year, according to congressional financial disclosures. Although Chavez-DeRemer lost her 2024 House reelection campaign in Oregon’s fifth district, which includes parts of Portland and Eugene, she received support from at least 17 labor unions—more than the eventual Democratic winner, Janelle Bynum.

Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination frightened some Republicans—especially because the PRO Act would have overridden states’ so-called right-to-work laws, designed to limit union membership and defund labor, in part by easing the nonpayment of union dues. Her most prominent conservative naysayer was Paul, who said last month that he would vote against her in committee, and predicted that Chavez-DeRemer would “lose 15 Republicans” in a full Senate vote for being “very pro-labor.” 

But Teamsters Union General President Sean O’Brien, who has tied himself to Trump, was a fan—it was reportedly O’Brien who put Chavez-DeRemer forward as Labor Secretary to the Trump transition team. And when her nomination was announced in late November, O’Brien posted on X, calling it a significant demonstration that Trump was “putting American workers first.” The Teamsters—along with many other unions—backed Chavez-DeRemer, specifically citing her 2024 endorsement of the PRO Act.

As my colleague Serena Lin noted last July, O’Brien, who had previously called himself a “lifelong Democrat,” drew controversy in labor circles for his move toward Trump:

O’Brien’s critics from within the union argue that his appearance at the RNC will set a dangerous precedent at a potential turning point for American labor. Teamsters vice president at-large John Palmer has repeatedly publicly rebuked O’Brien’s involvement with Trump. In a recent op-ed in New Politics, he wrote that O’Brien’s speech at the RNC “only normalizes and makes the most anti-union party and President I’ve seen in my lifetime seem palatable.”

Palmer’s concerns came to pass, as a small but vocal faction of the GOP, including the likes of J.D. Vance and Josh Hawley, leveraged the nomination to burnish their images as supporters of certain workers’ rights. As Mother Jones’ Noah Lanard observed, this “small subset of Republicans who want to be seen as class warriors” pits American labor against imaginary enemies.

Immigration is one of them. During Chavez-DeRemer’s confirmation hearing last week, Sen. Hawley (R-Mo.) lobbed the nominee a friendly softball on whether Trump’s border crackdown was “pro-worker.” She agreed—in fact, Chavez-DeRemer had already said earlier in the hearing that “mass immigration…has hurt the American worker, and we want to make sure that we’re supporting President Trump in his endeavor to support the American worker at all costs.” 

Pinning labor issues on immigration is nothing new. As my colleague Isabela Dias wrote, many Republicans pushed that message during the 2024 election campaign.

Samantha Sanders, the Director of Government Affairs and Advocacy at the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, says such rhetoric “is based on racism, xenophobia, and misinformation.” What does more to depress working conditions and wages, Sanders told me, is the large number of workers who—whether due to deportation concerns or other fears—are not able to push against exploitative labor conditions.

“If you want to make sure that immigrant workers are not pushing wages down and contributing to a race to the bottom,” Sanders says, “give them legal status to work, to be able to work above board, and, ultimately, have a pathway to citizenship.” She pointed to a report from the Immigration Research Initiative, another nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, and some of her colleagues at EPI, which found that immigration enables the US to experience continued economic growth despite an aging American-born population and a decreasing number of working adults. 

A separate EPI report detailed the damage wrought by a “two-tiered” system of workplace rights, especially among immigrants who only have temporary status through a work visa.

Hawley and Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who stated during the hearing that he, along with the Teamsters’ Sean O’Brien, presented Chavez-DeRemer to Trump as a potential nominee, framed her as the candidate to make both sides happy: a nominee “uniquely positioned in the center.”

He also referred to his newfound friendship with O’Brien as an example of “bipartisanship.” (Mullin—a former MMA fighter—bizarrely challenged O’Brien to a fight during a HELP Senate committee hearing in November 2023 when the Teamsters president questioned his “self-made” business background.) 

But that’s simply not what the Labor Department is, Sanders explains. Just as the Department of Commerce, and employer-focused federal agencies like the Small Business Administration, engage the demands of employers, the Department of Labor “protects and promotes the interests of the American worker.”

Sanders told me she was “disappointed but not surprised” at Chavez-DeRemer walking back many of her supposed pro-worker positions to align with the Republicans on the committee. The nominee avoided giving a clear answer when Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) asked whether her vision of “putting American workers first” was compatible with the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and many employees having jobs without paid leave. 

She also sidestepped Sens. Murray (D-Wash.) and Murphy’s (D-Conn.) questions about Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly getting access to the Labor Department’s data systems to search for supposed waste and fraud. According to NBC News, the information likely includes investigations into Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla, both of which face labor violation accusations, as well as confidential data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on topics like economic health and employment. 

The Democrats’ questioning seemed like an attempt to determine whether Chavez-DeRemer would be the pro-labor Republican that she was touted as or just another cabinet member who would fall in line with Trump. 

“Two months ago, before we saw how this administration was operating, it might have been more of a question of whether this is a place where an agency has some more leeway to make a case for positive changes,” Samantha Sanders said. “Now I think it’s pretty clear that they’re all supposed to do whatever they’re ordered to do.” 

One telling exchange for Sanders occurred during Murray’s questioning, where the Democratic senator asked Chavez-DeRemer what she would do if facing illegal instructions from Trump, noting that offenses have been “seen across the board since he was put into office.” Throughout the hearing, Democratic senators referred to attacks on workers like mass firings at the Labor Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that damaged and slowed both federal agencies. 

“I will commit to following the law, and I do not believe the president is going to ask me to break the law,” the nominee replied. 

“Well, okay,” Murray responded, visibly annoyed.

For Samantha Sanders, this was a significant departure from the promise of a supposed pro-worker Republican—and meant many Republican committee members’ calls for collaboration and bipartisanship from Democrats came off as bad faith. 

So what does Chavez-DeRemer’s ascent mean for labor under Trump’s second term? For unions, there may be immediate uncertainty. O’Brien acknowledged that the Teamsters disagreed with Chavez-DeRemer’s support of right-to-work in a Fox News interview hours after last Wednesday’s hearing. 

“But there is an opportunity to work bipartisan,” O’Brien told co-anchor John Roberts. “I’m working with senators like Josh Hawley to come up with a form of the PRO Act that may not include that.” He then echoed those Republicans’ new favorite words: “That’s the beauty of having conversations with people on the other side where you can collaborate.”

And regarding Trump’s dismantling of the federal government: “Let’s take a look at the hundred-and-first day and where we’re at at that point in time.” 

Trump has moreover nominated Keith Sonderling, who reportedly backs a pro-employer, deregulatory agenda, to serve as Deputy Secretary of Labor. His confirmation hearing took place immediately after the HELP Committee voted on Chavez-DeRemer. 

Sanders says that expectations have changed amid Trump’s all-out attacks on the state: The essential questions are now larger than Chavez-DeRemer’s voting record or even policies within the Department of Labor. The senators appear to also be interested in what nominees will do about the integrity of the federal government, she says. 

“It’s not just, ‘are you going to be allowed to carry a pro-worker agenda forward,’” Sanders said. “It’s also, ‘are you going to be compliant with an anti-worker agenda or even an anti-federal government agenda.’”