"My father never got to tell us what he wanted, and we never really knew how to ask"

 

My father died in stages, the way most people do, and the four of us boys — me and my three brothers, our wives beside us — didn’t know what we were watching. 

He’d had a stroke and couldn’t speak or meaningfully move for the week or so before he died; we didn’t know what he was feeling. We didn’t know what to say, or whether to say anything at all, whether to hold his hand or give him space, whether the grimace on his face was pain or something we were misreading entirely.       

We didn’t know why he’d suddenly seemed so alert for a day, and we didn’t know what it meant when that passed. We were well-educated, reasonably worldly adults with decades of life experience between us, and we stood around that bed like children who’d wandered into a room where the grownups were speaking a language none of us had ever been taught.              

I’ve thought about that a lot over the years. Not with guilt, exactly, though some of that is in there too. Mostly I’ve thought about it as a kind of cultural failure; a thing our society stopped teaching somewhere along the way and never bothered to replace.   

For most of human history, people died at home, surrounded by family and neighbors who’d seen it before, who knew the signs, who understood the arc of it. Death was something a community witnessed together and held together.

Then we moved it into hospitals, handed it over to professionals, and quietly lost the knowledge that ordinary people once carried as a matter of course. Now we’re shocked, disoriented, and grief-stricken in ways that might be at least partly unnecessary, if only someone had thought to tell us what was coming and what it meant.

That’s why a piece published this month in the Washington Post was so meaningful to me. Written by Ashley Abramson, it’s about death doulas, a profession that barely existed twenty years ago and is now growing fast enough that the International End-of-Life Doula Association has trained nearly 6,500 doulas worldwide.

A death doula is a non-medical companion who provides emotional, spiritual, and practical support to people who are dying, and to the families around them. As Kristen Patterson, a death doula and end-of-life planner in Northern Virginia, puts it, a death doula is “a calm, compassionate presence who can be there for dying people and their loved ones in their final moments.”

They can read aloud, play music, advocate with medical providers, help navigate paperwork and final arrangements, and simply stay present in ways that hospice nurses — stretched thin and focused on clinical care — often can’t. People don’t always realize that hospice care isn’t 24/7, Patterson notes; it certainly wasn’t in our case (Dad died at home). A death doula can be there as much as the family needs.

But what I found most valuable in Abramson’s piece wasn’t the description of the role itself. It was the specific things that death doulas, from their long experience at bedsides, have learned about the dying process that most families simply don’t know going in. This is the kind of knowledge that can transform a terrifying experience into something that still holds space for love and even peace.

The first thing the doulas want you to know is that dying can be peaceful. Diane Button, a death doula in Northern California and the author of What Matters Most: Lessons the Dying Teach Us About Living, puts it simply: “Just like the body knows how to be born, it knows how to die.”

For people who’ve been living for months or years in bodies racked by illness, the transition can actually come as a relief. Jill Schock, founder of Death Doula LA, told the Post that many people are relaxed at the end, because dying feels better than continuing to live in a body that’s been suffering. That’s not what most of us picture when we imagine death, but it’s what people who sit with the dying actually see. And Button adds that the most common regrets she witnesses aren’t about things left undone — vacations not taken, money not earned — but about things left unsaid. If you can get to a place of peace with your relationships before that time comes, the dying itself tends to go more gently.

The second thing the doulas want you to understand is that the dying person can still participate in shaping that experience. Even in a hospital room, you can fill the space with what matters: favorite music, beloved objects, the people and even the pets you love.

Erica Reid Gerdes, founder of Waxwing Journeys in Chicago, describes a client whose husband found real comfort in being able to play music from his wife’s favorite musical and read her favorite books to her in those final days. She was unresponsive by then, but as Reid Gerdes says, “We knew she could still hear.” That’s not a small thing. That’s everything.

Third: death doesn’t need to be painful. Many of us carry images of painful deaths we witnessed in earlier generations, but modern hospice care is specifically designed to manage symptoms including pain.

Part of a doula’s job is to make sure the dying person has adequate medication and isn’t suffering unnecessarily. And medication does something else, too — it can calm what’s called terminal agitation, something my family saw with Dad and had absolutely no framework for understanding. When someone is actively dying, the shutting down of organs can affect brain function in ways that cause the person to pick at their clothing, claw at their bedsheets, or seem frightened and restless.

Seeing that in someone you love is alarming, even traumatic, if nobody has told you it’s a known and manageable part of the process. It has a name. It can be treated. You’re not watching your father suffer some unique and inexplicable torment: you’re watching something that happens, that doulas and hospice nurses have seen many times, and that medication can ease.    

Fourth, and this one is critically important: it’s normal, even expected, for a dying person to stop eating and drinking near the end. The body simply needs less energy. Swallowing becomes too taxing. The Post article makes the point explicitly — you don’t need to urge someone who’s actively dying to eat or drink. It doesn’t deprive them the way it would deprive a healthy person. Families often feel guilty about this, or frightened by it, and push food and water when the body is trying to do what it knows to do. A doula can gently explain that letting go of that particular effort is itself an act of love.

And fifth — this is the one I keep returning to when I think about those last days with my father — there’s a phenomenon called terminal lucidity, or an end-of-life rally. In the days just before death, many dying people experience a sudden surge of energy and clarity. After days of not talking much or eating, they perk up. They seem like themselves again. Families often mistake this for improvement, for a turn in the right direction, and the hope it kindles makes what follows all the more devastating. What doulas know, from having witnessed it over and over, is that this rally is often the body’s final gathering before it lets go. It isn’t a sign of recovery. It can be a gift — a last real conversation, a last moment of connection — if you know how to receive it as such rather than as cause for false hope.

I wish someone had told us all of this before we walked into that room. I wish someone had sat us down and said: here’s what’s happening, here’s what to watch for, here’s what it means, here’s how you can be present for him rather than just frightened beside him.

That’s what a death doula does. That’s the knowledge that used to live inside communities and families and has largely been lost, and that a growing number of remarkable people are now working to restore.

INELDA and the National End-of-Life Doula Alliance both maintain directories where you can find certified doulas in your area. Death doulas are generally not covered by insurance, which is a policy failure worth fighting about separately, but the field is having conversations about Medicare reimbursement and pro bono work for those who can’t pay. If the financial barrier is real for you, ask; many doulas offer sliding scales or even volunteer their time.     

But even if you’re nowhere near this moment in your own life, I’d urge you to read Abramson’s piece in the Post, and to have the conversation with the people you love before it becomes urgent. Talk about what you’d want. Ask what they’d want. Write it down. The conversation itself is an act of love, and it costs nothing except the willingness to be honest about the one thing none of us can avoid.

My father never got to tell us what he wanted, and we never really knew how to ask. That’s a quiet regret I carry. You don’t have to carry the same one.

---

If this piece meant something to you, please share it with someone who might need it: a sibling, a grown child, a friend whose parent is aging. And if you’ve had experience with a death doula, or wish you had, I’d love to hear your story in the comments. -Thom Hartmann

    

Trump Put His Own Interests Above All in the Iran Deal

 

Surely something about this preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran must have felt familiar to America’s real-estate mogul president. After all, it reads like a real-estate bankruptcy filing — an act of financial capitulation. It is a measure of how much Iran had Trump over a barrel, and how thoroughly it cleaned his clock, that Iran’s lead negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told Iranian state TV after the details were announced: “The agreement is a record of U.S. failure. People will see it and judge.”

You don’t need to be a foreign policy expert to see what happened here. You need to be a domestic policy expert. Trump sold out America’s ally in the war, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states for the swing states of Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan. Trump knew that the food inflation and high gasoline prices triggered by this war were a prescription for a Republican wipeout in the midterms. He had to stop the war now to get prices down by November, because if the Democrats take the House and Senate, Trump will be looking at endless investigations into how he has used the presidency to enrich himself and his family — and possibly even impeachment.

So, Trump did what he always does: He abandoned all principle and all allies and put his personal interests above all other considerations. He even prepared the terrain to set up his vice president, JD Vance, for a fall. “If it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” he said. “If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD. You better be careful, JD.” People laughed — but nervously, because everyone knew it was a joke, but also not a joke. It was Trump’s inner voice speaking.

This was not a war I advocated, but once it started I was sure hoping Iran would lose. As such, I am shocked by the outcome so far — by the sheer cynicism with which Trump and Vance have gone from damning Iran, and telling its people to rise up because “help is on its way,” to praising its leaders, and how this deal has left Iran stronger and all its neighbors more vulnerable to Tehran’s whims.

I would have much more sympathy for Trump’s stress-filled handling of the wicked problem that is Iran if he had just once shown the same to President Obama or acknowledged that he couldn’t deliver now for the Iranian people as he promised. Instead, he just pretends that everything he did was perfect.

Let us count the ways it is not perfect. The deal not only puts off the question of the disposal of Iran’s near bomb-grade uranium to future negotiations — negotiations in which the Trump administration has already given up its military leverage — but also, most amazingly, it clearly leaves open the possibility that Iran will be able to charge a toll in the future to any ships that want to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Just read the cease-fire agreement: Upon the signing of this memorandum of understanding, “the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only …”

After billions of dollars of bombs dropped on Iran, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner won from Tehran 60 days of toll-free passage through Hormuz. After that, oil tanker captains, bring your credit cards. Thank goodness we had these crack real-estate negotiators on the case, not wimpy diplomats.

The cease-fire deal not only is silent on any commitments by Iran to curb its development of long-range missiles and its support for proxies undermining the governments of Lebanon and Iraq, but it also makes the 60-day negotiation on Iran’s nuclear future contingent on Israel’s halting its military operations in Lebanon against Iran’s mercenary army there, Hezbollah. If Barack Obama had ever agreed to such a thing, Fox News would have interrupted its regular broadcasting to denounce it.

All of this is the result of the fact that Trump and Netanyahu never took seriously the idea that Iran would do the obvious: close the Strait of Hormuz in response to their attack. So in their attempt to stop Iran from developing a weapon of mass destruction that it was unlikely to ever use — since Israel would immediately use one on Iran — Trump and Netanyahu inspired Iran to develop a weapon of mass disruption, a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, which it can use anytime it feels too much pressure from the United States or Israel.

The message to America’s Gulf Arab allies — the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait in particular — is that we are cutting and running, so you’d better make the best deals you can with Tehran to keep it at bay. This is the biggest geopolitical power shift in the Gulf since the start of the Iran-Iraq war. There is a new sheriff in town. Dial 1-800-Ayatollah.

In case they did not read that between the lines, Trump spelled it out in a news conference justifying why he did not try to curb Iran’s missile development: “What am I going to do? Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can’t have them?” he asked. “Doesn’t work that way, you know, it doesn’t work that way, and missiles aren’t the problem. Missiles, they hurt a little location, but they don’t blow up the planet.”

If you are reading those words in Tel Aviv or Riyadh, a shiver just ran down your spine, along with the dawning awareness that the president of the United States no longer is playing with a full deck and you are home alone.

For all of these reasons, it is simply impossible to listen to Trump and Vance without being reminded of Nick Carraway’s famous observation about Tom and Daisy Buchanan in “The Great Gatsby”: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Indeed, shortly before Ghalibaf and his Iranian colleagues were boasting that they had imposed a “failure” on the United States, Trump was declaring the Iranian leaders to be “very rational people.” “They were nice to deal with, they were strong people, smart people,” he added. “They are not radicalized and they’re, you know, looking to help their country.” He called them “smarter” than past regime leaders.

Compare this also with how Trump and Vance talked to and about President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — the leader of a heroic democracy that has been resisting a Russian invasion for four years: “You don’t have the cards,” Trump told him, urging Zelensky to cut a filthy deal with Vladimir Putin.

That is how they talk about the leader of a people defending the frontier of freedom from its worst enemy. For Iranian leaders — part of a regime that just gunned down thousands of their own people who were seeking freedom — Trump says they are “nice.”

Trump and Vance “have no coherent view of U.S. interests, and they have absolutely no core commitment to democratic values of any kind,” Gautam Mukunda, the author of “Picking Presidents: How to Make the Most Consequential Decision in the World,” told me. That’s the point. Trump loves to wrap himself in the American flag, but he is the least American president, in terms of his core values, in modern times.

You have to ask how Trump and Netanyahu could have miscalculated so badly as to think they could topple a regime that had been in power since 1979 by bombing it from the air. The same answer applies to both: It’s because they have surrounded themselves with sycophants and purged their parties of anyone who might challenge them.

“There are two ways to make sure your executive is a good leader — either by selecting people of good character or putting limits on what they can do — and America and Israel today have failed at both,” Mukunda said. “This war is the most perfect example of what happens when you disdain all forms of expertise, knowledge and principles, in favor of gut instincts.” Experts had predicted everything that went wrong in the war.

But therein may lie a possible silver lining for both America and Israel: The failed Trump-Netanyahu endeavor to destroy Iran’s Islam-fascist autocracy might end up saving American and Israeli democracy. Both countries are facing fateful elections — America’s midterms in November and Israel’s national election in the fall. Trump and Bibi, both sinking in the polls, were hoping that a quick win in Iran would propel each of them or their parties to victory.

The whole world is worse off with a stronger Iran, but it will be triply worse off if Trump and Bibi win their elections. Because five more years of Netanyahu as prime minister would be the end of Israel as a Jewish democracy. And two more years of Trump controlling the White House, the Senate, the House and effectively the Supreme Court would pose the same danger to American democracy.

Is there any way Trump can salvage a good outcome in Iran? Yes, but it has nothing to do with the fate of its nuclear weapons. In the wake of this war, if there is a diminished threat from Israel and America, that might unlock politics in Iran as well. It might just create the space for an Iranian majority to ask: “What does this regime have to show for 47 years in power besides a multibillion-dollar waste of money to get a nuclear bomb and funding militias around the region with cash we Iranians desperately need for our own development and turning our country into a water-starved environmental disaster?”

Who knows what politics, what pressures for regime reform or regime change, would be unleashed in Tehran if Iranian leaders can no longer distract their people with war?

NY Times: Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs Opinion columnist. He joined the paper in 1981 and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. He is the author of seven books, including “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” which won the National Book Award. @tomfriedman • Facebook

 

 

 

The Joke Is On Us

 

The buffoons who orchestrate fascism, with its quack science, idiocy, penchant for violence and grotesque hyper-masculinity, are ripe for satire. It is easy, as late-night comics do — and as the cabarets did for the Nazis in Berlin — to pillory the goons, misfits and mediocrities who hold power and spew fascist bile. But this form of satire blinds opponents to its destructive power and murderous core. It ignores the real centers of power. It does not engender resistance. It engenders disdain and cynicism. It furthers the social and political divide between us, the “enlightened” and “educated” elite, and them, the despised and ridiculed “basket of deplorables.”

There are two forms of satire. That of the educated elites, which dominates the commercial media, ridicules the foibles and pretensions of Trump and his hapless followers. This satire does not attack corporations or the war industry. It ignores the decay and rot within our political institutions, including the Democratic Party, which created Trump. It pretends we live in a democracy. It breeds cynicism, not resistance. It is characterized by a repugnant moral and intellectual superiority and heartless demeaning of the underclass. It fosters the social divisions and alienation that feeds fascism.

Antonio Gramsci warned that elitist satire is counterproductive. He called for a “passionate sarcasm,” which targets the machinery of power. Satire, he wrote, must excoriate the dominant myths and ideologies which buttress capitalism and fascism. It must expose not only the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of fascism but acknowledge the legitimate grievances of those under its spell. It must focus on the institutions that perpetuate injustice and social inequality.

“Trump has also been necessary to expose the plastic progressives, the liberal anti-Trump imperialists who, in their opposition to Trump’s deal with Iran, can only look like warmongering imperial psychopaths,” writes Nate Bear. “From all those sharing memes on social media about surrender, from the Democrats and CNN talking heads decrying the deal, to Jimmy Fallon dragging Trump for giving Iran back the money the US stole, there is no articulation of an alternative to endlessly bombing Iran. There’s no anger from liberals over dead Iranians, or at the imperial state, at Zionism or the embedded death machinery that made this violence possible. No, they’re just embarrassed for empire. And they don’t want to recognize the limits of that empire.”

Elitist satire — whether on “Saturday Night Live” or other late-night shows — punches down. It seduces liberals into believing that the thugs and grifters who have taken power are too stupid and too inept to last. There are millions of political exiles who understand how this self-delusion, this failure to take fascists seriously, is the great facilitator of fascism. They too once dismissed the goons who now run their countries as a joke.

The Turkish writer Ece Temelkuran, driven into exile by the regime of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in her book “Nation of Strangers: Rebuilding Home in the 21st Century,” lays out the familiar pattern: “It begins with a movement that divides society into two: the ‘real people’ versus the ‘corrupt elite’, and with a leader who insists they alone embody the ‘real’ people. The next step is the dissolution of truth and the prioritization of loyalty above decency. Then shame is dismantled. The leader breaks the long-standing political and moral consensus with unprecedented relentlessness. The longer they remain in power, the boundaries of what is acceptable begin to stretch. 

“What once felt unthinkable or despicable gradually becomes normal. As the institutions that hold democracy together are quietly hollowed out and the very definition of democracy is rewritten as being simply majority rule, universal values — human dignity and the rule of law — are replaced with a fierce nationalism, a proud victimhood, and a rewriting of history. Cruelty and ruthlessness are deemed just, not only in the highest echelons of politics but also trickling down to daily life. The circle of who counts as ‘us’ grows smaller, while millions of fellow citizens are recast as permanent suspects.”

“As Temelkuran warns, Americans, like those in other nations that have been down this path, “...soothe their fears by repeating the same illusionary line, ‘The institutions will hold.’ They do not yet dare to recognize their future country, and soon, they will not be recognized as citizens unless they follow the new rules in Trump’s America.”

Comedians such as Kimmel function like the cabaret star, Fritz Grünbaum, who during Nazism, once quipped when the power went out during a performance: “I can’t see a thing, not a single thing; I must have stumbled into National Socialist culture.” Grünbaum would eventually find himself in the Dachau concentration camp — along with other actors, performers and satirists — where he died of tuberculosis.

The Nazis moved swiftly to close the cabarets — along with all institutions that defied Nazi control — and replaced them with mindless variety shows. They hated mockery as much as Trump, who after Stephen Colbert’s final show, gloated that Colbert was “finished” and called him a “total jerk.” Trump also shared an AI-generated video of himself throwing Colbert into a dumpster, slamming down the lid and dancing. Trump wrote that Colbert’s exit was the “beginning of the end” for other late-night hosts.

Jokes about dictators in totalitarian regimes are a criminal offense. Satire is permissible in fascist states only when employed to mock political opponents and demonized minorities. It is not permissible when directed at centers of power. As Gramsci pointed out, the consolidation of power by fascists requires them to win the “cultural battle,” by dominating the public discourse, policing language — including satire — and redefining social, cultural and political norms.

Elitist satire is a pressure-release valve. But because it refuses to confront the roots of our political, social and cultural degeneration — which preceded the Trump presidency — it solidifies the fascist project it seeks to destroy. It reduces the catastrophe to the clown show around Trump: the sycophantic cabinet secretaries, ICE Barbie or Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s bizarre war on medical science. 

It does not address our failed democratic institutions — the academy, elections, courts, Congress, or the media. It deflects attention from the billionaires and corporations that have slashed regulation, imposed austerity and deindustrialization and distorted the economic and political system to facilitate the largest upward transfer of wealth in U.S. history. It does not address the murderous war industry or the domestic security apparatus that makes us the most watched, monitored, spied upon, tracked and photographed population in human history.

This elitist satire simplifies the complex social, economic and political forces we must dismantle. It ignores or pays deference to the subterranean forces that created Trump. Gramsci’s “passionate sarcasm” is too revolutionary and too truthful to be broadcast on media conglomerates such as CBS.

“Laughter is our reaction to immediate incongruities and those which do not affect us essentially,” the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr noted in “Humor and Faith.” “Faith is the only possible response to the ultimate incongruities of existence which threaten the very meaning of our life. There is no laughter in the holy of holies,” Niebuhr continued. “There laughter is swallowed up in prayer and humor is fulfilled by faith.”

When satire is the end point, it is deleterious. It masks what is coming. It must be, as Niebuhr pointed out, the entry point. It must push us, as Gramsci understood, into hard analysis and the organization of mass movements that alone can save us from tyranny. It must cease to play into the hands of a polarized nation, one where opposing factions write each other off as irredeemable. It must acknowledge that given the gravity before us, laughter is not enough.

The Chris Hedges Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  

                                                       Antonio Gramsci 

Republicans Starved Social Security: Now They Want to Wreck It!

These days, the MAGA Republican Party displays the survival instinct of dodo birds. Republican House and Senate leaders face staggering losses in both houses of Congress and in state races as a result of their cowardly capitulation to Donald Trump and the ensuing policy blunders they committed at his behest.

Aside from the narcissist in chief, no one will be shocked if Republicans get clobbered in November — certainly not after they passed the big, ugly bill (slashing healthcare and SNAP benefits to give billionaires more tax cuts); refused to compel complete disclosure of the Epstein pedophile files, or exercise a modicum of oversight of the most corrupt administration in history; sided with Trump’s ICE shock troops; and enabled the illegal, disastrous war in Iran. But wait: Republicans are still digging their political hole.

Now, Republicans are menacing Social Security. After their own policies worsened the Social Security funding crisis (more about that in a minute), House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) last week grabbed hold of the proverbial third rail in politics, delivering Democrats a soundbite perfect for any “throw grandma over the cliff” midterm ad.

In a radio interview, Johnson responded to a government report that the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run dry by 2032: The reason we’re in trouble is because over seventy-four percent of federal spending is on autopilot — mandatory spending, that is your entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and things like Social Security — they have to be adjusted and fixed. We have a plan to do that next year, and it’s critical, because we’re at $40 trillion-plus in debt. At some point, you get into a hole so deep you can’t climb out of it, so desperate times call for desperate measures.

(Considering the timing — right after Elon Musk attained trillionaire status and Trump got slammed for professing love for inflation and indifference to Americans’ financial pain — you almost wonder if Johnson is picking Democrats to win in the midterm prediction markets.)

Reacting to Johnson’s blunder, even right-wing Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told The Bulwark that the speaker made Republicans sound like they want “all of their tax breaks and loopholes and carried interest deductions … [and want] working people who’ve paid into all of these programs to take less.” (Although Hawley says he really does not “like the sound” of cutting Social Security, he really did not like the sound last year of Trump’s proposal to slash Medicaid either — but then voted for it.)

Three senior House Democrats swiftly pounced, recounting Republicans’ long- standing animosity toward Social Security. DOGE stooges sabotaged Social Security customer service, mishandled private data, and got caught trying “to mark millions of living people as dead to force them out of the country.” Putting benefit cuts on the table (even with the midterm disaster looming) confirms Republicans have not given up their yearning “to destroy Social Security and Medicare,” House Democrats argued.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CN) on Monday followed up with a detailed letter. “Republicans have a history of attempting to increase the retirement age, privatize Social Security, or otherwise cut Social Security benefits, and some Congressional Republicans have called to raise the retirement age or means-test benefits as the ‘solution’ to this problem,” they wrote. 

Recently, both SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Mehmet Oz have raised these ideas “to pay for the federal deficit, which the [big, ugly bill] worsened,” the senators observed.

Republicans’ favored “solutions” to the Social Security solvency problem exemplify their Simon Legree approach to governance. As the Democratic senators explained, raising the retirement age by two years would reduce a median retiree’s benefits between 17 and 35 percent, thereby “cutting tens of millions of Americans’ Social Security benefits and disproportionately [harming] seniors at the lower end of the income distribution who rely on Social Security as one of their main sources of income.”

The senators also demanded Trump answer pesky questions such as: Would you support removing the cap on income? Does the administration currently have a proposal to address the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund, and if so, does raising the retirement age factor into that proposal?

We anxiously await the answers — and for Democrats to raise the Social Security issue over and over again on the campaign trail and in every available oversight and budget hearing. In addition to their generic vow to strengthen entitlements by “making the wealthy finally pay their fair share, so every American can retire with dignity,” Democrats could offer additional proposals to boost funding for Social Security, such as slapping a 100 percent tax on illegal presidential emoluments or prohibiting corporate tax deductions for donations to projects defacing federal property (e.g., the arch, the ballroom).

In this same vein, Democrats, who should restore Social Security reserves when they regain the majority, should highlight how two key Trump initiatives have undermined Social Security.

First, the big, ugly bill worsened the Social Security funding gap. By lowering tax rates and temporarily expanding seniors’ standard deductions, it reduced the number of people paying into the system and the total amount paid in. Applying the Hippocratic Oath — first do no harm — would mean at least repealing the big ugly bill that robbed Social Security of critical revenue. (Certainly, repeal would also improve the general revenue picture, restore Medicaid and SNAP benefits, and end the unparalleled funding bonanza for abusive ICE and Border Patrol operations.)

Second, Trump’s draconian deportation operations and the concurrent crackdown on legal immigration make the Social Security problem worse. “Immigrants—including undocumented immigrants—offset the demographic factors that are straining the Social Security Trust Fund, namely fewer young workers paying into the fund and many more older Americans drawing from it,” the American Immigration Council has explained.

Halting the morally disgusting and economically disastrous assault on migrants would bring a bevy of positive results, but perhaps none as critical as helping to put Social Security on sturdier financial footing. Trump and his fellow white supremacists won’t admit that their economically suicidal anti-immigrant agenda, among other things, shrinks the tax base, stifles access to the best and brightness minds who promote technological innovation, and increase housing and food costs. But facts are facts. The resulting decrease in the workforce and payroll tax receipts has only aggravated the Social Security funding shortfall.

In sum, it took a decade, but Trump bootlicker extraordinaire Sen. Lindsey Graham’s infamous 2016 prophesy (“If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it”) certainly proved accurate. Republicans’ midterm blunders, specifically their latest assault on Social Security, perfectly illustrate that their Faustian bargain with Trump drained them of whatever political survival skills they still had. A crushing defeat in November would be precisely what they deserve.

---

-Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian is community-supported. Help fund bold journalism and critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption by becoming a paid subscriber. Join the fight now.

Photo: (Douglas Rissing/iStock)

 

Police rescue more than 400 cats from being eaten in Vietnam in a bust of a major animal theft ring

 

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Police in Vietnam rescued more than 400 cats in a major bust of a cat meat crime ring last week in Ho Chi Minh City, and at least 40 of them have been reunited with their owners. However, following the dayslong police operation, several of the cats died because of the harsh conditions they were found in, animal welfare groups said. They didn't elaborate or provide an exact number on the cats who didn't make it.

Since the operation, veterinarians and volunteers have flocked to care for the cats at a temporary rescue center set up at a facility run by the Ho Chi Minh City Criminal Police Division. “People who lost their cats can come to the police station to identify their pets and help the police with the investigation,” police official Nguyen The Bao told the state-owned Tuoi Tre newspaper.

This operation is “a sobering reminder of the enormous scale of Viet Nam’s cat meat trade,” according to Karanvir Kukreja, who leads a campaign against dog and cat meat consumption for the international nonprofit Humane World for Animals. Local media also reported that the Ho Chi Minh City police investigation into a spate of pet thefts resulted in the arrest of nine people

During the operation, police raided a yard and uncovered 45 cages containing around 400 live cats and four ice-filled foam containers holding approximately 80 dead cats. About 20 live cats were also recovered at a separate location, according to police, who said a kilogram of cat meat sold for around 70,000 Vietnamese dong (around $2.70).

The operation, with a total of more than 500 cats seized, was one of Vietnam's largest cat welfare cases in recent years, media reports also said. The suspects admitted to trapping and collecting cats across south Vietnam over the past three years — in Ho Chi Minh City, the country's largest city, as well as in the cities of Tay Ninh and An Giang, police said.

“The sad truth about this trade is that thousands of cats every month are being stolen, trafficked and slaughtered for meat across the country,” said Phuong Pham, the country director of the Humane World for Animals in Vietnam. “Thankfully, these survivors escaped.” Several of the rescued cats were pregnant, leading to kittens being born in police custody this week, she said.

Chris Gindelhumer with the nonprofit Vietnam Cat Welfare, who is helping care for the rescued animals, said he “saw quite a lot of tears in the last few days.” “It’s really beautiful to see how many Vietnamese families are coming, looking for their cats,” he said. “But it’s also heartbreaking because many families were looking for their cats and didn’t find them.”

Many veterinarians and volunteers are working around the clock for the cats, Gindelhumer said.

Consumption of dog and cat meat is legal in Vietnam. Vendors must have permits to validate the animals' origins. But certain cities like Hoi An in central Vietnam are working with global animal welfare groups to stop dog and cat meat consumption in the city.

Not long after South Korea's 2024 ban on dog meat, Vietnamese officials said the government plans to rebuild parts of the legal system to better protect pets and the rights of their owners. “This event surprised a lot of people and has raised awareness among many to stop consuming cat meat,” said An Pham, a master's degree student and avid cat lover in Ho Chi Minh City.

-Hau Dinhanton L. Delgado 

Police rescue more than 400 cats from being eaten in Vietnam in a bust of a major animal theft ring - NewsBreak

More Than 770,000 Children Are No Longer Receiving SNAP Benefits After Trump Changes Federal Food Program

 

As a House committee debated President Donald Trump’s signature domestic policy bill last year, Republican backers repeatedly emphasized that its changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, wouldn’t affect vulnerable people. SNAP reforms would “restore integrity” to the program and ensure it works for the “most vulnerable among us, including children,” said Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican and chair of the House Agriculture Committee.

Passing the bill would be a “historic accomplishment” that will ensure “those in need can continue to receive the assistance they need,” said Rep. John Rose, a Republican from Tennessee. And Rep. Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican, said the bill would focus resources on the “neediest” Americans. “If you are a pregnant woman, your benefits are unaffected. If you have young children at home, your benefits are unaffected by this bill. If you are disabled, your benefits are unaffected by this bill.”

But nearly a year after the measure was signed into law, the number of children receiving food assistance has plummeted by at least 776,000, according to a ProPublica analysis. At least 12 states break down program participation by age, and of the 1,670,011 people who are no longer receiving benefits in those states, 776,134, or 46%, were children.

Another analysis reached the same conclusion: Just last month, the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found there were 700,000 fewer children receiving food assistance.

Arizona has seen the nation’s largest percentage decline in SNAP participants; 205,223 children are no longer receiving the benefit since July 2025, a 55% drop. Louisiana had the second largest percent decline among children, 22%.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, hasn’t detailed the impact on children aided by the program, but initial figures show that compared to February 2025, 4.3 million fewer people received SNAP nationwide in February 2026, leaving 37.8 million participants. Although children weren’t the intended targets of the legislation’s changes, they’re increasingly “collateral damage,” said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

If states are trying to comply with the law’s changes to SNAP, they’re likely not focusing on making the program accessible, Bergh said. Other experts said that people may be pushed off the program because of increased paperwork requirements to remain eligible.

States are required to impose work requirements for most adult recipients, while preparing for two major cost shifts. In October, states will begin covering 75% of the program’s administrative costs. States have been paying 50% of those costs.

In addition, states will have to pay a larger share of SNAP benefits starting in October 2027, based on their error rate. Error rates reflect overpayments or underpayments of SNAP benefits. While sometimes characterized as fraud, such errors are usually the fault of the state agency or the SNAP recipient, according to USDA, which describes them as “largely unintentional.”

If a state agency is facing staffing shortages and struggling to comply with new regulations, it will be harder for low-income families to access the benefits, Bergh said. “Families are falling through the cracks.”

In Massachusetts, for example, the share of SNAP applicants who called an assistance line and couldn’t reach a worker rose from 61% in November to nearly 81% in March, according to the Department of Transitional Assistance, which administers SNAP in the state. The state agency did not respond to a request for comment.

A USDA spokesperson did not address ProPublica’s questions about the number of children who have lost access to SNAP. “There is no shortage of resources for the most vulnerable among us, including children,” the spokesperson said. The three members of the House Agriculture Committee who defended last year’s bill before its passage — Rose, Thompson and Johnson — did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about their statements now that many children no longer receive SNAP benefits.

Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, asked Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins about her recent comments that it was “good news” that millions of people no longer receive SNAP. If more than 700,000 children have been dropped in the 12 states that report those figures, “that number’s going to be into the millions” when other states are included, he said. Rollins responded, “The 700,000 number of children is not correct,” contending that most people who were kicked off SNAP were “fraudulent.”

“That is not a nonpartisan group that gave you that number,” she said. (ProPublica independently verified the figures reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

McGovern said he has talked to people who have lost food assistance. “These are people who actually need and rely on this food assistance to provide basic nutrition for their families,” he said.

Pressure to lower error rates “creates a temptation for the states to bump off working families,” said Parke Wilde, a food economist at Tufts University. Working families may have more volatile incomes, making it harder for state agencies to assess benefits accurately. “When they say we want to preserve SNAP for those with the greatest need, they’re sort of acknowledging that they want the scale of the SNAP program to be smaller,” he said.

Mariana Chilton, an expert in child hunger at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said a smaller program won’t save money in the long run. Research shows that children who receive SNAP benefits are healthier, have better academic outcomes, use hospitals less often and have better mental health as teenagers.

She called the situation a “public health crisis” in the making. “When children are not healthy, this affects children today and it affects them throughout their lifetimes,” she said, likening hunger during early childhood to a brain injury.

As Arizona’s SNAP participation drops, nonprofits are feeling the effects. St. Mary’s Food Bank, the largest in the state, has seen a 15% increase in need this year, which translates into 300,000 more visits from people in search of food, said Milt Liu, the chief executive officer.

“The Alarm Bell”: Arizona’s Drop in SNAP Participation Signals Potential Nationwide Impact of Trump Legislation

 -Nicole Santa Cruz, ProPublica

“I would gladly give up my right to vote to have a more conservative country”

That’s what right-wing influencer Samantha Stone said at a recent Turning Point USA Women's Leadership Summit. Turning Point is run by Charlie Kirk’s widow following his death. The Summit included some women who said they were willing to give up their right to vote because they trust their husbands to represent them. It’s a long way from the good trouble made by the suffragettes to that Summit. If you haven’t actually listened to these women express their views, this five-minute clip compiled by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is worth your time. “My perspective as a Christian woman,” one young woman says, “is that my husband and I are one flesh. I vote the same way he does, so honestly, I would be okay with giving up my right to vote, because I know that he would represent me well.” Another chimes in that her daughter won’t need to be able to vote because she knows she’ll marry a godly man. The viewpoint is shocking and even laughable when most people are exposed to it for the first time. And it does give rise to a number of questions. But we would be unwise to reject what these women are saying out of hand. Yes, it seems too ridiculous to become reality. There is a Handmaid’s Tale quality to these women’s voices; they are willing to bargain away their own personhood for what they perceive to be the security of marriage and motherhood. And it’s still a fringe view, even at Turning Point. But so many views we once considered fringe, ranging from the unitary executive theory to the demise of Roe v. Wade and women’s ability to access reproductive health care, have become mainstream. We are a country that tried, but failed, to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment simply provides that equality of rights under the law cannot be denied or abridged by the U.S. or any state on account of sex. In other words, women aren’t second class citizens; they possess equal rights to men. But the Amendment never made it across the finish line. (There is still work in that regard underway). So instead of dismissing what we see here as ridiculous, it’s a good moment to recommit to the principle that all people, women included, are entitled to equal rights. If MAGA women don’t want to vote, that’s their prerogative. As for me, I intend to exercise my rights fully. These women who would willingly give up their right to vote seem to have absorbed the idea that political power is dangerous in their own hands. It's worth considering how ideas like this get planted and who seeks to benefit from them. These are the conversations Civil Discourse exists to have—not shouting matches, but careful looks at what's really happening to our democracy and why.  Thank you for being here with me for them. And if you aren’t already a subscriber, join us if that's the kind of thinking you want in your inbox. This is a community of people who take democracy seriously, and there's room in it for all of us. We have so much work to do. We’re in this together, Joyce Vance