#U.S. policy shift

[latestnews-now]

In a major policy shift, the U.S. is now allowing Ukraine to use antipersonnel land mines against Russian forces. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revealed these nonpersistent mines are designed to deactivate over time, minimizing civilian risk. This comes as Russian ground troops push hard in eastern Ukraine, and tensions escalate after Biden's approval of Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil. Watch this video to understand the implications and what’s next in this high-stakes conflict.

Subscribe now to stay informed and never miss a beat on what’s happening around the globe!

[global-newz]

What Trump, Putin, and Zelensky Said After Biden's Missile Nod for Ukraine

The Biden administration has made a major shift in U.S. policy by approving the use of long-range ATACMS missiles for Ukraine, enabling the country to target Russian territory for the first time since the war began. This decision, made in response to escalating tensions and North Korean involvement in the war, comes just two months before President Joe Biden hands over power to his successor, Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism about continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

The Policy Shift: A Game-Changer?

For over a year, Ukraine has used U.S.-made ATACMS missiles against Russian forces in occupied Ukrainian regions, but Washington had previously barred their use on Russian soil, citing concerns that it would further escalate the conflict. The U.S. decision now gives Ukraine the green light to strike targets inside Russia, with the range of these Lockheed Martin-made missiles extending up to 300 kilometers (186 miles). Ukrainian officials are expected to target critical Russian military infrastructure, including air bases, ammunition depots, and key logistical hubs, particularly in the Kursk region near the Russian-Ukrainian border.

The Strategic Importance of Kursk

The change in policy comes amid increasing concerns about Russia's growing strength in the east of Ukraine and the involvement of North Korean troops in supporting Russian forces. The deployment of North Korean soldiers to the Kursk region, specifically, has been seen as a direct challenge to Ukraine's defense efforts. Ukraine's forces are expected to launch a counter-offensive in this region, which has been a key battleground for both Russia and Ukraine.

While the decision to provide long-range missiles could grant Ukraine an advantage, experts caution that it may not be enough to shift the momentum of the war entirely. Ukraine’s leadership hopes that the missiles will give their forces the ability to target critical Russian supply lines and military installations that could otherwise be out of reach, but the overall effect of the move remains uncertain.

Russian Reaction: Escalation Fears

Moscow's response has been one of intense alarm, with Russian officials warning that the move could lead to further escalation. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long warned that Western military support for Ukraine could cross a dangerous threshold, and he reiterated his concerns this week. "This will mean that NATO countries, the USA, and European states are effectively fighting with Russia," Putin said in September, acknowledging the growing stakes in the conflict.

Andrei Klishas, a prominent Russian Federation senator, called the U.S. decision an "overdue symbolic move" that could escalate the war to dangerous levels, predicting that it could "end with Ukrainian statehood in complete ruins by morning." Another Russian senator, Vladimir Dzhabarov, took a more dramatic tone, stating that this move could be a "very big step" toward World War III.

Trump's Response: Mixed Signals

In the United States, the decision has reignited the debate over the role of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, with former President Donald Trump and his supporters expressing mixed feelings. Trump has consistently criticized the extensive U.S. support for Ukraine, suggesting that the Biden administration's approach has been reckless and insufficiently focused on peace talks. However, Trump’s position on how to handle the war is far from clear, as some of his officials advocate for continued assistance to Ukraine, while others are pushing for a reduction in support.

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., voiced concerns over the potential for global conflict, writing on social media that the "military industrial complex seems to want to make sure they get World War III going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives." His remarks reflect the ongoing division within the Republican Party on the issue of Ukraine.

On the other hand, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz suggested that Trump might speed up the delivery of weapons to Ukraine in order to pressure Russia into negotiations. This could align with Trump’s stated goal of resolving the conflict quickly—he has previously said he could bring an end to the war within a single day.

However, other members of the GOP, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have been vocal in their opposition to further U.S. involvement. During a speech in May, Vance declared, "We’ve done more than our fair share" and expressed skepticism about continuing to fund what he described as a "never-ending war." Vance, along with other critics, argues that the U.S. should focus on domestic priorities rather than becoming further entrenched in a foreign conflict.

Global Reactions: A Symbolic Gesture or a Strategic Move?

While many Western diplomats have welcomed the decision as a necessary escalation to demonstrate unwavering support for Ukraine, some are cautious. They acknowledge that the ATACMS missiles, while powerful, may not be enough to turn the tide of the war or bring about a decisive military victory. In some circles, this move is seen as more symbolic, showing that the West remains committed to backing Ukraine despite increasing risks of direct confrontation with Russia.

The global community remains divided, with some fearing that the U.S. decision may increase the likelihood of nuclear escalation, while others believe that providing Ukraine with the necessary firepower to defend its sovereignty is essential.

The Road Ahead

As tensions continue to rise, both in Ukraine and on the international stage, the role of military aid and diplomatic negotiations will continue to be at the forefront of discussions. Ukraine is relying heavily on Western support, but the geopolitical consequences of this support, particularly in the face of an unpredictable Russian response, make the situation volatile.

The next phase of the war is likely to be shaped not only by the missiles that are now in Ukraine’s hands but also by the political decisions made in Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv. With the U.S. presidential election looming, the policy direction under the next administration could drastically alter the course of the conflict.

As the world watches closely, it remains to be seen whether this new development will bring Ukraine closer to victory or further entrench the conflict, pushing both sides toward even greater escalation.

[munaeem]

7 countries tightening visa rules for Americans in 2025

So, About That Passport Privilege… It’s Kinda Expiring We used to joke that carrying a U.S. passport was like being handed a golden ticket. Flash it at a border, smile for the camera, and boom—you’re in. No questions, no fuss, no visa sticker bleeding into your travel journal. That little blue book used to open doors. Now? It’s opening eyes. And not in the good way. It’s 2025 and something’s…

[pwrn51]

Is Equality at Risk in Today’s Government Contracts?

  In today’s episode of Lest We Forget Historical with Lillian C., we tackle a provocative question posed by journalist C.A. Bridges: Has the current administration effectively reintroduced segregation? According to Bridges’ article, a February memo from the U.S. General Services Administration reveals that the administration no longer mandates the explicit prohibition of segregated…

[insightfultake]

The Declining U.S. Birth Rate: A Demographic Shift with Far-Reaching Implications

For decades, the United States has relied on a steady birth rate to sustain its population and economic growth. However, the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) paints a different picture—one of steady decline in birth rates across various demographics. This shift is not just a statistical anomaly; it reflects deeper societal and economic trends that could shape America's future in significant ways.

[justsaying4041]

Project 2025: Reforms Impacting U.S. Labor Rights

Project 2025, a comprehensive vision for future governance, proposes significant reforms to the U.S. Labor Department, aiming to overhaul workplace regulations, reduce bureaucratic oversight, and shift focus towards greater flexibility for employers. While proponents argue that these reforms will foster job creation, increase business competitiveness, and reduce government interference, there are…

[futurefatum]

🟡🧠🔨Ray Dalio Reveals the Hard Truth About America's Path Forward (Tone: 270)

Ray Dalio warns of America's shift towards industrial self-sufficiency & rising BRICS influence. Expect geopolitical & economic transformation. #Economy #Geopolitics

Posted on November 19th, 2024 by @TomBilyeu ABOUT THIS VIDEO: In this video, Ray Dalio discusses America’s economic, political, and geopolitical future. He outlines five key forces driving global changes, including debt cycles, internal political order, international relations, technological advancement, and acts of nature such as climate change. Dalio highlights a shift towards a more…

[globalnewscollective]

U.S Added to a Global Human Rights Watchlist

Why You Should Be Worried About America’s Declining Human Rights Ranking

When you think of human rights abuses, you might picture authoritarian regimes, not the United States. But according to a new report from CIVICUS (source), the U.S. is now officially categorized as a "narrowed" democracy—a status shared with countries where free speech, protests, and civil liberties are increasingly under attack. The U.S. joins the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Chile, Slovakia, and 37 other countries with "narrowed" civic freedoms. That’s the kind of company America is now keeping.

What Does This Mean for You?

Your Right to Protest Is Under Threat – Laws restricting peaceful demonstrations have been ramping up, making it easier for authorities to criminalize protests they don’t like.

Censorship and Press Freedom Are in Decline – Journalists covering protests or political corruption are facing more harassment, and state-level laws are making it harder to report the truth.

Targeting of Activists and Marginalized Groups – The crackdown on civil rights groups, LGBTQ+ organizations, and racial justice movements is accelerating.

Legal Attacks on Voting Rights – Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and efforts to limit ballot access are all symptoms of a democracy that’s backsliding fast.

What’s at Stake?

If the U.S. keeps trending in this direction, basic freedoms—like the ability to voice your opinion, challenge authority, or even vote—could become privileges instead of rights. Young people, activists, and minority communities will be the first to feel the impact, but make no mistake: this affects everyone who believes in a fair and free society.

The Bigger Picture

This is not just about one bad policy or one election cycle—it’s about a systematic shift toward authoritarianism. Through executive orders, Trump has sought to consolidate power in the executive branch, making it easier for him and his allies to monitor and control departments and agencies to ensure they are only carrying out Trump’s agenda. The more people accept restrictions on speech, protests, and voting, the easier it becomes for those in power to tighten their grip. This is how democracies die: not with a single dramatic event, but through a slow erosion of rights, one law at a time.

What Can You Do?

Stay Informed – Know what’s happening at the state and federal levels.

Speak Up – The more people push back, the harder it is for leaders to silence dissent.

Vote Like Democracy Depends on It – Because, frankly, it does.

The U.S. has long claimed to be a beacon of democracy. But that light is fading—and unless we fight for our rights, it could go out completely.

[afloweroutofstone]

Tariffs and trade wars replace class conflict with economic nationalism. Rather than having workers unite against their bosses, tariffs put labor unions and corporate executives on the same side of a struggle against foreign workers and bosses, thus moving the focus of economic competition from class to nationality.

As the US labor movement weakened, its ambitions shrunk. Rather than pushing for transformative economic reforms, many unions satisfied themselves with calls for tariffs to protect domestic industries and US jobs. A strong internationalist labor movement would look in another direction: increasing cross-border cooperation between workers of different nations, preventing the bosses from forcing workers to compete with one another for scraps. This can be paired with strong public investment and industrial policy within each nation to support good jobs for all workers.

A long, thought-provoking article on the matter:

In 1966, at the height of the labor movement’s postwar power, Walter Reuther, then president of the United Auto Workers, helped establish the first four “World Auto Councils.” Workers at General Motors, Volkswagen-Daimler-Benz, Fiat, and Chrysler (now Stellantis) could now meet across borders and, it was hoped, establish common international contract expiration dates. The plan fell short of an international bargaining agreement, but the unions hoped it would “strengthen the hand of each union in the contract negotiations of its own country,” said World Auto Councils coordinator Burton Bendiner in 1978. In 1971, French GM workers who supplied gearboxes and transmissions for the company’s European operations went on strike. They coordinated with their counterparts in Germany’s IG Metall and the UAW to pressure GM management. They refused work that management had diverted from a struck plant and created a common strike fund. The French union, said Bendiner, was able to draw strength from the more powerful UAW. Similarly, when Ford workers in Britain went on strike in 1971, their counterparts in West Germany refused to pick up the slack with overtime. This increased striking workers’ leverage at the table while avoiding the legal challenges a sympathy strike would have provoked. Instead of letting companies pit plants and workers against each other, unions in France, Belgium, Austria, Italy, and Germany negotiated a “multinational-union agreement” that forced their common employer—a Belgian and French glass company—to distribute work among subsidiaries in different countries. This pointed to an international vision of economic development and job creation. The UAW was championing solidarity, not competition for scarce jobs. The common target was the multinational corporation... Auto companies, which have more plants than they need, have a bargaining advantage because they can easily add and subtract shifts and lines at each plant, undermining workers’ bargaining power across borders. The UAW wants to restrain capital mobility and increase its bargaining power when auto bosses threaten to offshore jobs and establish runaway shops abroad. But it is trying to do this not by coordinating with other unions abroad, but by erecting trade barriers to compel the companies to reshore jobs in the U.S. The UAW argues that tariffs could force the U.S. auto industry to bring back jobs from Mexico and Canada, though the union isn’t explicit about job losses to Canada’s unionized autoworkers. But if Mexican workers make on average $3 an hour, would a 25 percent tariff be enough incentive for auto companies to stop producing in Mexico? What about the savings they get from manufacturing in Canada, with its weaker currency and comprehensive national health insurance? Then there’s question of how deeply integrated auto industry is globally... When [UAW President Shawn] Fain says, “If the Big Three alone just got their currently active plants up to 100 percent capacity, they could add 50,000 jobs,” the conversation has shifted to a zero-sum calculus. Without an increase in car sales—a dim prospect with the world economy tipping into recession—Fain’s statement is tantamount to “take their jobs and give them to us.”... The well-being of U.S. autoworkers cannot come at the expense of workers in Canada and Mexico, as well as those in Asia or anywhere else... Sam Gindin, the former research director of the Canadian Auto Workers, argues that tariffs are a diversion from the fight for everything from “universal health care and inadequate access to higher education and affordable housing to the refusal to make unionization a substantive democratic right.” Gindin writes, “Trade matters, but the antagonistic and substantively undemocratic domestic impact of corporate and government decisions matters more.”...

[reality-detective]

Obama’s Repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act Allowed Government Propaganda Against Americans

Mike Benz revealed to Joe Rogan how Barack Obama’s repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act enabled the U.S. government to use propaganda and covert influence operations against its own people. Originally, the act restricted such activities to foreign targets, preventing agencies like the CIA and State Department from manipulating domestic institutions. By repealing it, Obama allowed these tools to infiltrate universities, media, unions, politicians, and judges. This shift also gave the foreign policy establishment a way to fund domestic censorship efforts under the guise of international influence campaigns. The result was a massive expansion of state-controlled narratives, media manipulation, and legal activism, all aimed at reshaping public opinion and controlling political discourse in America. 🤔

[progressglobenews]

[May 17, 2021]

Newsweek:

The largest undercover force the world has ever known is the one created by the Pentagon over the past decade. Some 60,000 people now belong to this secret army, many working under masked identities and in low profile, all part of a broad program called "signature reduction." The force, more than ten times the size of the clandestine elements of the CIA, carries out domestic and foreign assignments, both in military uniforms and under civilian cover, in real life and online, sometimes hiding in private businesses and consultancies, some of them household name companies. The unprecedented shift has placed an ever greater number of soldiers, civilians, and contractors working under false identities, partly as a natural result in the growth of secret special forces but also as an intentional response to the challenges of traveling and operating in an increasingly transparent world. The explosion of Pentagon cyber warfare, moreover, has led to thousands of spies who carry out their day-to-day work in various made-up personas, the very type of nefarious operations the United States decries when Russian and Chinese spies do the same. Newsweek's exclusive report on this secret world is the result of a two-year investigation involving the examination of over 600 resumes and 1,000 job postings, dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests, and scores of interviews with participants and defense decision-makers. What emerges is a window into not just a little-known sector of the American military, but also a completely unregulated practice. No one knows the program's total size, and the explosion of signature reduction has never been examined for its impact on military policies and culture. Congress has never held a hearing on the subject. And yet the military developing this gigantic clandestine force challenges U.S. laws, the Geneva Conventions, the code of military conduct and basic accountability.

[blackstarlineage]

Limited Financial Literacy and Wealth Management in the Black Community: A Garveyite Perspective

Introduction: Economic Power as the Foundation of Black Liberation

Marcus Garvey understood that political freedom is meaningless without economic independence. He believed that for Black people to be truly free, they had to control their own economies, industries, and institutions. Garvey once stated:

“A race that is solely dependent upon another for its economic existence sooner or later dies.”

Yet, in modern times, the Black community continues to struggle with limited financial literacy, poor wealth management, and economic dependency.

Generational wealth is rarely passed down due to a lack of long-term financial planning.

Black spending power is high, yet most of this wealth flows out of Black communities into white-owned corporations.

Many Black families live paycheck to paycheck, unable to invest in land, businesses, or other wealth-building assets.

From a Garveyite perspective, this lack of financial education and economic control is one of the greatest obstacles to Black liberation. Until Black people master financial literacy and wealth management, they will remain vulnerable to exploitation and economic servitude.

1. The Historical Roots of Black Economic Disempowerment

A. The Legacy of Slavery and Economic Exclusion

During slavery, Black people were denied the right to own property, earn wages, or accumulate wealth.

After emancipation, racist policies such as Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and sharecropping ensured that Black people remained economically oppressed.

Redlining, discriminatory banking practices, and racist housing policies prevented Black families from building generational wealth.

B. The Destruction of Black Economic Movements

Throughout history, whenever Black people built strong economic foundations, white supremacy actively sabotaged them:

Tulsa’s Black Wall Street (1921) was burned down in one of the worst race massacres in U.S. history.

Rosewood, Florida (1923) was another thriving Black community destroyed by racist mobs.

Marcus Garvey’s Black Star Line was sabotaged by the U.S. government agencies and internal betrayals, preventing Black economic self-sufficiency.

These attacks created a culture of economic fear and dependency, where many Black people stopped believing in their ability to control their own wealth.

C. The Shift Toward Consumerism Over Ownership

Instead of prioritizing land, business ownership, and self-sufficiency, many Black communities have been conditioned to focus on spending rather than investing.

Integration into white economies led to the collapse of many Black-owned businesses, as Black consumers began spending their wealth outside of their own communities.

Today, Black buying power in the U.S. exceeds $1.7 trillion, yet very little of that money stays in Black communities.

This cycle of high spending and low investment keeps Black people economically powerless.

2. The Consequences of Limited Financial Literacy in the Black Community

A. Generational Poverty & Wealth Gaps

The average Black family's wealth is significantly lower than that of white families due to a lack of inherited assets.

Many Black families do not pass down property, businesses, or financial knowledge, forcing each generation to start over.

Without financial literacy, many Black people fall into debt traps, poor credit, and unstable financial situations.

B. Economic Dependency & Vulnerability

Black people remain financially dependent on white-owned banks, businesses, and corporations.

Without economic independence, Black workers are at the mercy of racist hiring practices, wage discrimination, and economic downturns.

The lack of Black-owned financial institutions means Black wealth is constantly controlled by non-Black interests.

C. Lack of Black Business Ownership & Community Development

Only a small percentage of Black businesses receive venture capital, bank loans, or community investment.

Many Black entrepreneurs struggle to scale their businesses due to limited financial education and funding access.

Black neighborhoods often lack grocery stores, banks, and essential businesses, making them reliant on white-owned corporations.

Without strong Black financial networks, Black communities remain economically stagnant.

3. The Garveyite Solution: Financial Literacy as a Tool for Black Liberation

A. Teaching Financial Literacy from an Early Age

Black families must prioritize financial education in the home, teaching children about:

Saving and investing

Credit and debt management

Entrepreneurship and wealth-building

Schools in Black communities should incorporate mandatory financial literacy programs focused on:

Budgeting and money management

Stock market and investment strategies

Real estate and homeownership

Education is the first step toward economic empowerment.

B. Creating Black-Owned Financial Institutions

More Black-owned banks and credit unions must be established to provide financial services that cater to Black economic needs.

Black people should redirect their money into Black-owned banks and investment funds to build community wealth.

Cooperative economics should be prioritized, where Black investors pool resources to fund businesses, real estate, and development projects.

Garvey believed that Black people must control their own financial institutions to ensure true independence.

C. Prioritizing Ownership Over Consumerism

Black people must shift from being consumers to being investors and producers.

Instead of spending billions on luxury brands, Black communities must invest in land, businesses, and industries.

Black celebrities, athletes, and high-income earners should prioritize investing in Black-owned enterprises instead of white-owned corporations.

Wealth accumulation should be about long-term growth, not short-term spending.

D. Rebuilding Black Business Districts & Economic Hubs

Black communities must establish modern "Black Wall Streets" that focus on:

Black-owned banks and financial institutions.

Black manufacturing and production centres.

Pan-African trade networks.

Government policies should be challenged to allocate reparations, land grants, and business funding to Black entrepreneurs.

Economic self-reliance must be a core principle of Black liberation.

4. Action Plan: Steps to Financial Empowerment in the Black Community

A. Individual & Family-Level Actions

Open accounts with Black-owned banks and investment firms.

Teach children about saving, investing, and business ownership from an early age.

Prioritize homeownership and land acquisition over renting and temporary wealth.

B. Community-Level Actions

Establish financial literacy workshops in Black schools, churches, and community centres.

Support Black entrepreneurs and Black-owned businesses by intentionally spending within the community.

Form investment groups and cooperative businesses to pool resources and fund economic initiatives.

C. Global Black Economic Collaboration

African nations and the Black diaspora must create international trade agreements that empower Black businesses.

Encourage Pan-African banking and investment partnerships between Africa, the Caribbean, and Black America.

Develop Black-led multinational corporations that can compete with global industries.

Garvey envisioned a self-sustaining Black economy that connected Africa and the diaspora—this vision must be revived.

Conclusion: Black Liberation Requires Economic Independence

Garvey warned that:

"A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots." But financial illiteracy is like a tree without soil—without economic power, Black liberation is impossible.

If Black people continue to:

Spend instead of invest,

Finance non-Black businesses instead of building their own,

Ignore financial literacy instead of mastering wealth management,

They will remain economically enslaved.

However, if Black people:

Prioritize financial education and generational wealth,

Invest in Black-owned banks, businesses, and industries,

Build economic self-sufficiency through Pan-African cooperation,

Then true Black liberation can be achieved.

Garvey’s call remains: “Up, you mighty race, accomplish what you will!”

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Capitol police quickly issued a warning to the protesters — which included U.S. army whistleblower Chelsea Manning alongside author and activist Raquel Willis — to disperse or face arrest, including sexual misconduct charges. Following those warnings, they were arrested and escorted from the building by Capitol police. 

The protest follows Johnson’s announcement in November that transgender women are not allowed to access women’s restrooms and facilities in the Capitol and House buildings — an announcement that was not accompanied with any information about enforcement, or how such a policy would be carried out. The group called for elected officials to block Rep. Nancy Mace’s proposed bill that would ban trans people from bathrooms in museums, national parks and other federal property and for Democratic members of Congress to filibuster and block the bill if or when it comes to a vote. 

“This bathroom sit-in sets an example of the righteous defiance and solidarity needed under a second Trump administration,” Gender Liberation Movement said in a press release, citing support from transgender and cisgender participants. The group said survivors of sexual violence also joined the protest to demand that proponents of bathroom bills stop falsely accusing trans women of endangering cis women when they use women’s facilities.  

[justsaying4041]

Project 2025: Redefining U.S. Trade Policy

Project 2025 proposes a bold transformation of U.S. trade policy, focusing on reshaping international commerce to prioritize economic self-sufficiency, deregulation, and reduced reliance on multilateral trade agreements. While the intention behind these changes may be to secure U.S. economic interests and encourage domestic growth, the broader implications of these policies raise significant…

[the-scientist-blog]

President Trump’s relationship with climate change policy has been highly controversial and has drawn a significant amount of attention from politicians, environmentalists, and global leaders. While it is true that Trump has been a vocal skeptic of climate change science and has historically supported policies that many believe undermine global climate efforts, the assertion that he would "stop" the progress on climate change entirely is more complicated. There are several factors to consider that illustrate why it is unlikely that Donald Trump will be able to halt the progress on climate change entirely, even with policies that prioritize fossil fuel industries, deregulation, and skepticism towards international climate accords.

1. Global Movements and Public Opinion

One of the primary forces that will prevent Trump from halting climate progress is the widespread global movement in other nations in favor of addressing climate change. Over the past few decades, public awareness and concern over environmental degradation, the rise of extreme weather events, and the growing scientific consensus on climate change have catalyzed action at various levels. Even during Trump's tenure as president, the shift towards climate activism grew, with international agreements such as the Paris Agreement, corporate initiatives, and grassroots environmental movements gaining momentum.

Public opinion, especially in democracies, plays a significant role in shaping policy. In the United States, the majority of Americans support climate action, including a strong preference for clean energy and renewable resources. Despite Trump’s rhetoric, various cities, states, and businesses in the U.S. have continued to prioritize climate goals. For instance, states like California have implemented ambitious climate policies, such as transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2045. Furthermore, a growing number of corporations have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions. The private sector’s movement towards sustainability, driven by consumer demand, investor pressure, and increasing environmental risks, represents a substantial force for climate action that extends beyond the federal government.

Even if Trump were to reverse or dismantle federal climate policies, the local and private sector commitments would likely remain largely unaffected. These bottom-up efforts represent a powerful counterbalance to federal inaction and are likely to continue advancing the fight against climate change regardless of the administration in power.

2. Economic Shift Toward Clean Energy

While Trump has been a staunch advocate for coal, oil, and gas, the global economic shift toward renewable energy is undeniable. The cost of renewable technologies, such as solar and wind power, has drastically decreased over the last decade. This economic shift makes clean energy an increasingly competitive and attractive option for both developed and developing countries. By 2025, it is estimated that the cost of solar energy will continue to fall, making it even more affordable and mainstream.

The renewable energy sector has seen significant growth in its employment. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), more than 11 million people worldwide were employed in the renewable energy industry by 2021, a figure that is expected to continue rising as nations transition away from fossil fuels. The growth of renewable energy markets is increasingly detached from political agendas, driven by technological innovation and economic pragmatism. Regardless of Trump’s policies, these forces are already in motion and will likely continue to expand, creating jobs, boosting economies, and driving global progress on climate change.

Additionally, as the consequences of climate change, such as extreme weather events, wildfires, and rising sea levels, continue to threaten communities and industries, the push for sustainable infrastructure and resilient urban planning grows. The cost of inaction will continue to drive investments in climate adaptation and mitigation technologies, further fueling the global transition to cleaner energy systems.

3. International Cooperation and Climate Diplomacy

Even during Trump’s presidency, when the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017, international cooperation on climate change continued unabated. While the U.S. decision to exit the accord was a blow, it did not signal the end of global climate diplomacy. Many world leaders and climate organizations pushed forward with ambitious plans for carbon reduction, renewable energy investments, and international collaboration. The European Union, China, and India, as well as other nations, have made strides in combating climate change through national policies and international agreements.

Trump’s reluctance to engage with the Paris Agreement, as well as his opposition to climate-focused international cooperation, did not isolate the U.S. from the global conversation on climate change. The U.S. remained a key player in many climate-related issues at the local, corporate, and state levels, even if the federal government under Trump was less cooperative.

4. Technological Innovation and Climate Solutions

The energy sector, which has traditionally relied on fossil fuels, is undergoing a profound transformation. Advances in battery technology, electric vehicles, and green hydrogen are already making renewable energy more feasible for widespread use. As technology continues to develop, renewable energy solutions will become more efficient, less expensive, and more scalable.

Furthermore, the global push for climate action will continue to stimulate innovation. Even if Trump were to curtail government funding for green technology, private investment in clean energy and sustainability is projected to increase. Major companies are making significant strides to reduce their carbon footprints, from Google’s goal of running on 100% renewable energy to Tesla’s push for mass adoption of electric vehicles. Corporate pressure and consumer demand will continue to drive innovation and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, limiting the potential for any one individual, including Trump, to stop the progress on climate change.

5. The Resilience of Local and State-Level Action

Despite the Trump administration’s rollback of federal climate policies, local and state governments in the U.S. have continued to push forward with their climate initiatives. States like California, New York, and Washington have continued to prioritize climate action, passing laws that mandate emission reductions, promote renewable energy development, and require climate adaptation strategies.

This decentralized approach to climate action ensures that the United States remains a significant actor in the global effort to combat climate change. Even if Trump were to reintroduce policies that weaken federal regulations, states and cities would likely continue their push for climate policies in line with the global scientific consensus. This “bottom-up” approach is a vital counterbalance to the federal government’s actions and is indicative of a broader commitment to addressing climate change that transcends individual political figures.

Read the Conclusion at https://www.thescientistblog.com/blog/you-cant-stop-destiny

[saywhat-politics]

"Unfortunately tossing a scarf over the GDP numbers doesn't change the fact that their policies have us careening toward a downturn."

All signs are pointing to a coming recession as U.S. President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on close trading partners, oversees mass firings of civil servants, and pushes for cuts to public services—but by firing economists, advisers, and other experts tasked with advising federal agencies on economic shifts, the administration is working to ensure that the government and the public can't read those signs.

As Politico reported Friday, experts serving on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Technical Advisory Committee were informed this week that they were no longer needed, leaving the BLS without a panel that has long advised the Labor Department on how economic changes can impact data collection.

A page for the committee was removed from the Labor Department's website, along with one that had information about the Data Users Advisory Committee, which has advised on how businesses and policymakers can use the agency's economic reports.

"It would be a bad sign for a software company to cancel all beta testing if you expect to keep making better software," Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Roosevelt Institute who served on the data users committee, told Politico. "This feels like the same sort of thing."