A Few Questions for Our Would-Be AI Overloads by Jean-Marie Kauth

Are you creating a species to replace our own, then, oh mighty AI Overlords? It seems the answer to that is yes since you believe there is a 10% chance AI will wipe out humanity entirely and are proceeding heedless, nevertheless. Then I have just a few questions, I beseech you, before your planned apotheosis into the electronic ether.

Just as we have killed off all but 4% of wild mammals by weight, with another 60% for food, will the species that succeeds us likewise dramatically deplete us to sustain themselves? Will we be kept for food or some such? We need the ecosphere, but they might not so long as they reduce our numbers by billions, preserving just a few to feed and serve them.

Here’s my next question. Will AI creatures voluntarily constrain their own numbers and level of consumption so as to be themselves sustainable? Or will they also spin out of control, further and further destroying the ecosystem on which all of us, including AI Overlords, depend?

I wonder, whether the overlord species is human or AI, how this unlimited growth and insatiable voracious hunger will NOT ultimately destroy the planet on which all lives (even those in silico) depend? Or is that part of the plan, with Mars and all?

Could we not instead imagine a real revolution in intelligence, one consonant with a living planet and all its species, right down to the microbiota, to actually sustain continued life and mutual prosperity on Earth in the long-term? Can we imagine the plastic intelligence of AI coexisting long-term with the living biosphere?

If you are going to bring about the apocalypse, shouldn’t we also think about how to prepare our children? Will atrophying their brains and stunting their ability to solve problems and encounter adversity prepare them for anything but a future of cognitive surrender and abasing service to machines? Or is pacifying and mesmerizing them just the thing as we prepare them for the altar of sacrifice? Is that what you are already doing with the toxic combo of Tik-Tok and brain-stunting pesticides from the womb onward? 

How clever. Destruction of the natural world, which AI is accelerating, means that we cannot continue on this way. Instead of college, should we be preparing our students for a world without lightbulbs, clean water, healthy food, or indoor plumbing, much less the Internet?

Is all this just a distraction from climate change as AI ramps up the real damage to our ecosphere, tainting the air, spewing out CO₂, sucking dry the aquifers, sullying our soil, and cluttering our planet with a slatternly scattering of endless e-waste? Is AI both a smokescreen for bringing back coal-burning power-plants (pun intended) and also an accelerant poured on the already burning fires of our planet?

Do our would-be AI overlords have no children? Do they love no other human being or any of the rare fruits of human civilization?

There is a poignant, tragic plaint, not long ago a joke, patiently pacing the lonely hallways of the internet: “In the fast-paced world of Silicon Valley, the way you quit says everything about where you work. When someone leaves a normal job, they say, ‘you know, I’ve had a great time here, and now it’s on to the next adventure.’ When someone leaves an AI tech job, they say, ‘I have stared into the abyss. I am retiring to write poetry. Please spend time with your families.’”

And this sounds almost verbatim like the warning a resigning Anthropic safety lead issued just months ago: “The world is in peril. And not just from AI or bioweapons, but from a whole series of interconnected crises unfolding in this very moment. We appear to be approaching a threshold where our wisdom must grow in equal measure to our capacity to affect the world, lest we face the consequences. 

Moreover, throughout my time here, I’ve repeatedly seen how hard it is to truly let our values govern our actions…. I feel called to writing that addresses and engages fully with the place we find ourselves, and that places poetic truth alongside scientific truth as equally valid ways of knowing, both of which I believe have something essential to contribute when developing new technology. I hope to explore a poetry degree and devote myself to the practice of courageous speech.”

As a literature professor, the appeal to poetry tickles my soul, but don’t we think we need to also do something more concrete to avert disaster? What about commonsense regulation? What about Garrett Hardin’s “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon”? Who does not feel disappointment that so many are giving up without a fight for our world, for all we love, without so much as a bang or a whimper?

-Jean-Marie Kauth

The book I have worked towards for more than 20 years, Poisoning Our Children, is now available for pre-order at https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/54124/poisoning-our-children

Pre-orders are hugely important, as they affect whether bookstores stock the book, how algorithms surface it, and how seriously publishers take authors. Your support matters more than you know. All author profits will be donated to Environmental Health non-profits.

Figure 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2019/06/05/dont-fear-robot-overlords-ais-will-rule-the-world-through-humans/

Just How Bad Is It?

 

Before last week, the name Jacob Coxon was probably not one any of us would have known. But as he announced his resignation from his role as a researcher for AI giant Anthropic and published a warning that AI “could kill us all by the end of the decade” kicked off a global conversation about the scale of the potential threat of out-of-control artificial superintelligence.

Soon after, Anthropic released a report detailing recent misuses of its powerful AI models, including designing missiles and bombs, creating deadly pathogens and surveilling dissidents. And CEO Dario Amodei, rather than dismissing Coxon as yet another disgruntled ex-employee, announced that he largely agreed with him, calling for a new regime of monitoring, coordination and even regulation. What followed was a rare show of unity and contrition from big tech bosses.

For the TechScape newsletter, Blake Montgomery wondered why Coxon’s warning has cut through, while Nick Robins-Early, David Smith, and Chris Stein reported on Donald Trump’s dismissive reaction, which provoked a backlash from both Republicans and Democrats. David also reported on the unlikely pairing of Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon, who shared a stage to argue for more protections. Nick asked experts how likely it is that AI CEOs will follow through on pledges to slow the pace. 

And, among the many fascinating opinion pieces we published, make sure you read the one by Alex Turner, a former Google DeepMind staffer who said we really should be listening to the warnings, and the one by Stuart Russell, one of the leading AI experts in the world, on why Amodei’s call for “pacing the frontier” is not enough.

That we’re at this point is as bizarre as it is scary, especially as we’re still working out the impact of the AI models we’re already using in day-to-day life. That’s been a constant theme of our journalism recently. I’d urge everyone reading this to listen to series two of our brilliant podcast series Black Box, presented by Michael Safi and executive produced by Joshua Kelly. 

In Black Box: the Chatbots, Michael meets ordinary people who have become convinced they have made scientific breakthroughs, cured diseases or invented new technologies using AI chatbots, symptoms of what’s now known as “AI psychosis”.

This excerpt of Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s brilliant new book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World is a must-read, too, examining the motives of the infinitely rich men behind some of this technology and their alliance with the far right. The piece is a call for action to urgently defend what we love – the planet and fellow humans. 

Naomi was also interviewed by Zoe Williams and, with Astra, joined Carter Sherman on our US podcast Stateside to discuss why the convergence of recent climate, far-right and tech crises are creating an atmosphere of apocalypse, and how “hereness” is our way through the doom. I love the idea of “hereness”, particularly in the context of the Guardian’s mission to report on “many somewheres”.

As another antidote to the dire warnings, Nick Evershed wrote a somewhat comforting column urging us not to accept AI domination as inevitable and reminding us that we have the power to change things for the better, as we have done before. And Lois Beckett compiled the definitive list of books to make sense of it all. We could also always talk to each other.

-Katharine Viner, The Guardian

"Monsters Walk Among Us"

 

We have many monsters to destroy. –George Seferis

But how can anyone tell the truth about fascism, unless he is willing to speak out against capitalism, which brings it forth? –Bertolt Brecht

More than four decades ago, the Greek composer and public intellectual Manos Hadjidakis issued a warning that now reads less like a reflection on fascism than a prophecy of our own time. The greatest danger, he suggested, comes when we grow accustomed to the monster, when its presence no longer shocks the conscience and its violence begins to merge with the routines of everyday life. Tolerance does not diminish the monster; it multiplies the conditions that allow it to flourish, strengthening its presence in public life until monstrosity itself acquires the authority to govern. In this instance, the collapse of conscience is inseparable from the uncoupling of “belief from judgment, conviction from action.”

We have reached such a moment.

The monsters are no longer hiding in the shadows. They occupy presidential offices and ministries, command armies and police forces, control digital platforms, dominate television screens, administer borders, build detention centers, and transform the suffering of others into political theater. Their language of racial purification, mass deportation, extermination, vengeance, and disposability no longer produces the outrage it once might have summoned. Cruelty is displayed as strength. Humiliation becomes entertainment. The spectacle of suffering becomes a source of political pleasure. What should be unbearable becomes familiar; what should provoke resistance is absorbed into the rhythms of everyday life.

The monster triumphs not simply when it commits atrocities, but when its language becomes ordinary, its violence becomes acceptable, its weaponization of racial and class divisions goes unnoticed, and its presence no longer disturbs the moral imagination. 

Toni Morrison gave us another language for understanding how monsters become ordinary. She called it “dead language,” a language emptied of ethical responsibility and enlisted in the service of domination. Morrison’s dead language is itself monstrous.  As she writes, oppressive language “does more than represent violence; it is violence.” It is a language that “drinks blood, laps vulnerabilities, tucks its fascist boots under crinolines of respectability and patriotism as it moves relentlessly toward the bottom line and the bottomed-out mind.”

Morrison’s insight reaches beyond rhetoric. Monsters require a language that prepares the ground for their violence, strips their victims of humanity, and teaches people to accommodate the unthinkable. Dead language is one of the conditions that allows monstrosity to pass into everyday life disguised as common sense.

Primo Levi once observed that “Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.” Levi remains right about the role of unthinking functionaries, but today the monsters themselves have acquired institutional power and public legitimacy. Emboldened by staggering economic inequality, empowered by the machinery of high-tech authoritarianism, and legitimated by an expanding culture of state violence, they have moved from the political margins to the commanding heights of American society.

Here Hannah Arendt’s warning about the failure of thinking takes on a renewed urgency. Monstrosity thrives when judgment is surrendered, when the obligation to think becomes a burden, and when ignorance is transformed from an absence of knowledge into a cultivated refusal to know. We might call this the banality of ignorance: the willful suspension of judgment that allows people to see suffering without confronting it and to hear lies without rejecting them. The monster does not merely demand obedience. It needs subjects who have learned not to think about what their obedience makes possible.

Yet Hadjidakis’s warning poses a question more disturbing than whether monsters now govern us. What does it mean for a society to begin to resemble its monsters? And what pedagogical forces are at work in creating and normalizing that resemblance? Resemblance does not mean that everyone becomes a killer or a fascist. It means that the habits of thought, structures of feeling, and forms of indifference on which monstrosity depends begin to penetrate everyday life. The banality of ignorance becomes a social condition, a cultivated form of moral blindness in which not knowing offers a refuge from responsibility and refusing to think becomes a condition of belonging. But such ignorance does not exist outside the realm of desire. It has an emotional register, a psychology of authoritarianism and a pedagogy of terror through which people learn not simply to live with cruelty but to bathe in its emotional charge, finding pleasure and belonging in “patterns of domination and submission [that harden] into a syndrome of attitudes regarding hierarchy, power, sexuality and tradition.”

The monster has a long history, born in the darkest regions of the social imagination where fear, difference, and power converge. As Manvir Singh has observed, monsters have long haunted the boundaries between the human and the inhuman, the familiar and the terrifying, the civilized and what it casts outside its gates. But monsters are never simply creatures of fantasy. They are warnings, projections, embodiments of collective fears, and often weapons for deciding who belongs within the circle of humanity and who can be expelled from it. What matters politically is what happens when the monster steps out of myth and fantasy, takes possession of the institutions of power, and acquires the authority to decide who may live, who must suffer, and who can be made disposable.

There is, however, another problem with the metaphor of the monster itself. To imagine Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Benjamin Netanyahu, or other architects of contemporary authoritarian violence simply as monsters risks placing them outside history, as if their cruelty originated in some private pathology detached from the society that produced them. The monster can then become an alibi for the society that created him. 

Moral outrage becomes individualized, while the institutions, economic interests, racial hierarchies, cultural apparatuses, and political forces that make organized cruelty possible disappear. This is the crucial insight in Jorge Gonzalez Arocha’s argument that turning perpetrators into monsters can itself become a way of looking away. Arocha argues that “reducing the perpetrator to nothing more than a monster protects us from recognizing ourselves as potential perpetrators. It distances us from the event and its reality, while placing us in a position of moral superiority…. [It] is a way of denying that the ability to destroy also belongs to us, that it forms part of the human condition.”

The problem is not that monsters do not exist. The problem begins when monstrosity becomes an explanation rather than a question. Monsters do not descend upon society from somewhere outside history. They are produced within history, cultivated through institutions, protected by bureaucracies, legitimized by law, financed by powerful economic interests, amplified by media, and normalized through culture. The political significance of monsters lies not simply in the horrors they commit, but in the social order that makes those horrors possible, useful, legitimate, and eventually ordinary. A singular focus on monsters can obscure the deeper structure of gangster capitalism, a system that “prioritizes certain forms of power over the common good and enables the gradual dehumanization of our societies.”

The question must therefore change. We must move from monster to machinery, from the pathology of the individual to the political economy of organized cruelty, and from there to the cultural and educational forces that teach people how to live with the suffering such machinery produces. Monsters do not act alone. Their power becomes visible in the institutions that protect them, the wealth that sustains them, the laws that authorize them, and the violence that follows in their wake. We see their handiwork in streets stained with blood, in migrants brutalized and left to die in detention centers, in the torture documented in Israeli prisons, and in the bodies of children and families torn apart by Israeli and American bombs in Gaza. 

Behind these abstractions are torn limbs, dismembered bodies, children pulled from rubble, families burned and buried beneath the ruins of their homes, and human beings reduced to flesh and bone by systems in which cruelty has been organized, authorized, and repeated until even the most horrific violence threatens to lose its capacity to shock.

The horror lies in a society’s growing accommodation to monsters, in the silence surrounding their crimes and the erosion of moral and political boundaries that once made their actions intolerable. Such silence is never innocent. It is the rigor mortis of ethical and political decay, the point at which a politics organized around death begins to pass as ordinary life. 

The nightmare no longer lurks in the shadows; it claws its way into daylight and is met with indifference, resignation, or applause. The question is how people learn to live amid mass suffering and eventually look away. What forms of power require such silence? What institutions cultivate it? What culture teaches people to turn away from the bodies left behind? And most important, what pedagogical machinery teaches millions not merely to tolerate cruelty but to identify with those who inflict it, desire the power they embody, and experience the suffering of others as the price of their own imagined liberation?

Political economy, culture, and pedagogy converge here. The monster becomes inseparable from gangster capitalism, pedagogical terrorism, and the culture of cruelty. Gangster capitalism does not accidentally produce monsters. It increasingly requires them, along with publics capable of loving them.

Arendt’s concept of radical evil takes this argument further, moving us from the failure of judgment to the political machinery that renders human beings superfluous. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, radical evil emerges from a political order capable of stripping human beings of rights, history, individuality, and finally their claim to membership in the human community. The concentration camp represented the most extreme realization of this logic, but its political significance extended beyond the camp. Totalitarianism required institutions capable of transforming human beings into disposable matter.

Arendt’s later account of Adolf Eichmann complicated the picture further. Eichmann did not appear before her as a demonic figure possessing some unfathomable depth of evil. He appeared frighteningly ordinary: bureaucratic, careerist, obedient, incapable of thinking seriously about the consequences of his actions. The banality of evil did not mean that his crimes were banal. It meant that extraordinary crimes could be administered through ordinary routines, bureaucratic language, professional ambition, obedience, and the suspension of judgment.

Reinhard Heydrich, one of the principal architects of the Nazi machinery of terror and mass murder, represents another configuration of the political monster. Here ideological fanaticism, administrative intelligence, and extraordinary institutional power converged. Eichmann and Heydrich should not be collapsed into the same psychological type, but both expose the inadequacy of treating atrocity simply as the work of monsters. Modern systems of terror require administrators, lawyers, technicians, police officers, propagandists, intellectuals, journalists, and functionaries. Evil becomes most politically dangerous when it acquires an office, a budget, a bureaucracy, a vocabulary of necessity, and a public willing to accept its premises… .

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: The Terror of the Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), On Critical Pedagogy, 2nd edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy: Education in a Time of Crisis (Bloomsbury 2021); Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance (Bloomsbury 2022) and Insurrections: Education in the Age of Counter-Revolutionary Politics (Bloomsbury, 2023), and coauthored with Anthony DiMaggio, Fascism on Trial: Education and the Possibility of Democracy (Bloomsbury, 2025). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s board of directors.

from When Monsters Walk Among Us - CounterPunch.org

 

45 Days to Midterms

The biggest problem Democrats may have if they, as seems increasingly likely, win majorities in one or both houses will be deciding where to begin in their investigation of Donald Trump’s reign of incompetence and corruption.

The urgent need for congressional oversight got a boost this week with ProPublica’s damning article detailing how a Russian oligarch, Umar Kremlev, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to help host Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding reception — just the latest example of egregious foreign influence peddling. 

“For a decade, Putin’s government, regarded as a chief adversary of the U.S., has been accused of efforts to influence American elections,” ProPublica noted. “Attempts by Russia to make inroads with the Trumps before the 2016 election exploded into controversy that dogged much of the president’s first term.” 

This should alarm all Americans, as it raises more troubling questions about Trump’s pro-Putin stance in the Ukraine war. As the article posed, “National security experts expressed alarm at Trump Jr. accepting the oligarch’s largesse, saying it raised an urgent question: What motivated Kremlin to spend a fortune cultivating the connection?” One can only imagine. But as bad as this is, it is only one instance of one category of egregious misconduct that Trump and the Republicans have countenanced.

Democrats will have their hands full, as was evident in a recent Washington Post article that laid out the categories of potential investigations:

-self-enrichment by Trump and his families and cronies;

-handouts and pardons to supporters;

-self-glorifying construction projects; immigration abuse; spotlighting misconduct allegations against immigration officers; the detention of lawful residents and citizens; the rising death toll in immigration detention centers; the deployment of the National Guard in liberal cities; and the alleged mishandling of spending and contracts by then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem;

-dismantling/destroying the federal government;

-prosecution of enemies; pressure campaigns on corporations, universities, and law firms, “often in violation of the First Amendment”;

-foreign affairs: “the Board of Peace, a multinational group meant to end conflicts; the new presidential plane gifted by Qatar; tariffs and trade deals; the Iran war; military intervention and strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in Venezuela; and the redevelopment of Gaza”; and

-the Epstein files.

It’s an impressive list, with many specific scandals that could easily be slotted into the categories above (e.g., DOJ attorneys’ possible violation of professional ethics and federal court rules, nominees and officials’ alleged lying under oath and/or misleading lawmakers, racism and discriminatory practices at the Pentagon and elsewhere, widespread Hatch Act violations by Cabinet officials).

The most obvious concern about embarking on this ambitious plan — “the lawless Trump gang will refuse to cooperate” — is a further indictment of the Trump regime’s unfitness to serve and its contempt for democracy. 

But it is also an example of counterproductive fatalism. For starters, not even the Trump goons can stop everyone from cooperating. There are ex-regime employees, victims of abuse, private sector collaborators (who fear consequences of ignoring Congress), whistleblowers, and yes, even some responsible current officials who will show up and testify truthfully under oath. There are also written documents that cannot be concealed or destroyed.

Congress should be clear that failure to cooperate and testify truthfully will have serious, ongoing ramifications. These include the defunding of relevant government departments, referral for criminal proceedings in a future Democratic administration (or to state and local authorities who may have jurisdiction for underlying misconduct), and civil suits against individuals and government entities — for which courts will have jurisdiction to hand down contempt sanctions for noncooperation.

Other anticipatory objections to the investigations smack more of self-defeatism: ‘Nothing will happen to these people. Trump cannot be impeached or go to jail.’ Such complaints get the process backward. First, Congress compiles the record, then Congress, the courts, and the voters decide what to do about it.

Moreover, the absence of maximalist penalties for Trump (who cannot be certain that the MAGA Supreme Court’s absurd grant of criminal immunity extends, for example, to acts of pure personal enrichment having nothing to do with his core duties as president) leaves a universe of potential ways to hold wrongdoers accountable. These range from clawing back ill-gotten gains to professional sanctions (e.g., disbarment) to criminal prosecution (federal, state, or local) for lower-level officials to military discipline to permanent exclusion from federal jobs.

Let’s not overlook one of the key reasons for the entire exercise: To make an historic record that removes any reasonable doubt about the extent of the cruelty, incompetence, malfeasance, and lawlessness of this regime. Voters in future elections should have no doubt as to who enabled what misconduct, who looked the other way, who profited from office, and who put party loyalty and personal interest above their obligations to the Constitution and the American people.

Protect Democracy, the nonpartisan pro-democracy organization, in its 2022 report observed the wide-ranging purposes oversight and accountability can provide: “[C]omprehensive fact-finding and truth-telling can combat disinformation and work towards creating a more shared reality; lay the political groundwork for institutional reforms; and generate support for other critical accountability measures, such as criminal prosecutions.”

It is vital that those who engaged in wrongdoing is not allowed to waltz away with reputations untouched by their participation in conduct that should shock the conscience of decent Americans:

Accountability can break the revolving door of wrongdoers cycling in and out of power and recommitting offenses—using their time out of power to rehabilitate reputations. In the absence of accountability, history may favor glossing over the breadth and gravity of transgressions that occurred and create an environment amenable to reputationally rehabilitating wrongdoers.

Anyone running for office who served under Trump will have to account for his or her record; anyone seeking important positions in civil society (e.g. partners in law firms, corporation board members) will also need to explain their conduct. Every voter, every public entity, and every private sector employer or philanthropic organization will make an evaluation of past conduct — then themselves be held responsible if they decide to entrust former Trump lackeys with new positions.

In sum, the task of investigating Trump regime wrongdoing may seem overwhelming, but Democrats have no choice but to proceed swiftly, on multiple fronts. Delay, non-confrontation, and “bottom-up” investigation of Jan. 6 under the well-meaning but hapless former Attorney General Merrick Garland had disastrous ramifications for democracy. Congressional Democrats should not repeat that pattern. They should be prepared, focused, and determined to search out wrongdoing at the highest levels of the Trump regime as soon as they take office. 

We will not get a second chance to investigate and hold responsible those who have inflicted so much harm on so many.

-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.

 

“To destroy things he can’t possess, or control is his essential nature.”

 

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia refused to permit the Kennedy Center board, stacked by Trump with his own loyalists, to return Trump’s name to the facade of the building. Cooper reiterated that Congress had prohibited such an addition and would have to change that law in order to make the addition of Trump’s name legal.

The board of the Kennedy Center promptly appealed and voted to close the venue for two years for renovations. Then Trump posted on social media that those renovations couldn’t take place unless the court approved the addition of his name to the building. Without that, he posted, “unfortunately, the building is destined to doom. Isn’t that too bad?”

Although the Kennedy Center board insisted that only Trump’s name on the building would restore donations, in fact, the Washington Post reports that ticket sales and fundraising plunged when Trump added his name to the building in the first place. Nonetheless, Trump posted that he is the only one who can save it, “because I have the ability to raise the money, and the ability to construct—that few others have. I also have the strength and power of the Presidency, which will be needed [to] do what must be done, and give it a strong shot at Greatness again!”

As George Conway of the Bulwark noted, “To destroy things he can’t possess, or control is his essential nature.” It is also as if Trump is self-soothing by celebrating his core identity even as his incompetence and greed have driven the United States, and the world, into crisis.

But even that is not providing him comfort these days. Representative Joyce Beatty (D-OH), an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center board and the member who sued over his takeover of the center, explained to Symone Sanders-Townsend of MS NOW that Trump called into the board meeting after the court decision and “went into a tantrum.”

While most people appear to have refused to confront Trump to his face—Maine governor Janet Mills’s “We’ll see you in court” was so rare it made headlines—Beatty took him on. She recounted: “It was the most unprofessional thing that I’ve ever witnessed or been a part of it.” But after he called her “an obstructionist” and “dumb” and said he thought she was “incompetent,” she retorted: “I know you’re incompetent.” Beatty appealed to the chair to stop Trump’s unprofessional behavior, but when he continued to berate her, claiming it would be her fault if someone were killed at the center, she responded: “You’re already killing people, we’re at war.” And when he talked about what a great developer, he was, she “reminded him that he had more bankruptcies than anybody in the room. I mean, it really went there,” Beatty told Sanders-Townsend. “I was not going to let him bully me, intimidate me. And the facts stand for themselves.”

Indeed, these days, facts across the board are challenging Trump’s image of himself. Panic is sounding across the U.S. about oil prices. The Houthis in Yemen, backed by Iran, are threatening the Bab el-Mandeb strait at the outlet of the Red Sea on its way to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean, threatening another 4% of the world’s oil supply to global markets. Saudi Arabia had diverted oil shipments from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea through the East-West pipeline across the country, but officials have closed the pipeline after strikes. Today, senior executives from Shell and Equinor warned that the world is looking at tightening supplies of oil and “price volatility” as the industry is losing the ability to offset the disruptions.

On X, Patrick De Haan, a petroleum analyst at GasBuddy, charted the rise of diesel prices in the U.S. this week. Diesel jumped $0.82 a gallon in Fort Stewart, Georgia; $0.82 in Moorhead, Minnesota; $0.75 in Athens, Georgia. In the twelve hours before 1:30 this afternoon, Eastern time, gasoline jumped $0.30 a gallon in Lawrence County, Ohio, and Edwardsburg, Michigan. It jumped $0.28 a gallon in Des Moines, Iowa. De Haan reported that gas prices in and around Chicago appeared to be rising to $4.99 a gallon today.

As De Haan noted, it was “no shock, with diesel setting new all-time records and showing no signs of slowing,” that the Federal Reserve raised interest rates today for the first time since July 2023. Trump has been adamant that he wants to see interest rates lowered and has threatened to cut off trade with certain countries unless the Fed lowered them. But rising inflation meant that the board instead voted unanimously to raise rates by a quarter of a percentage point to a target range of 3.75% to 4%.

Trump did not take the news well. “Interest Rates in the United States should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World—BY FAR,” he posted. “LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!”

At a political rally in North Carolina, Trump suggested that the Fed is attacking him personally. “They’re raising the rates to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do,” he said, referring to himself in the third person. “The problem they have is that we have the greatest economy in history.” “So, they’re raising that only for political reasons and that’s a raise against Trump.”

In Ireland, where he traveled for the Irish Open golf tournament at his course in Doonbeg, Trump told reporters on Sunday that the U.S. might stay in Iran and “keep the oil” as the U.S. did in Venezuela. He claimed Venezuelan oil has “paid for the war many times.”

But—even aside from the fact invading a country and taking its resources violates the U.N. charter—there is no record of that money or where it is going. In January 2026, a U.S. official told Jarrett Renshaw of Reuters that the U.S. had completed its first sale of Venezuelan oil, valued at $500 million. That money was to be held in a U.S. account in Qatar, not the U.S. Treasury.

Yesterday, testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent refused to answer questions Representative Sean Casten (D-IL) asked about the Venezuelan oil money. Bessent refused to say how much money from Venezuelan assets—including gold, as well as oil—had flowed through Treasury accounts or accounts managed by Treasury since January and said he had no knowledge of whether the money was flowing to “the U.S. government, U.S. persons, or U.S. corporations.” He deflected by saying simply: “Again…this is the, uh, one of the largest assets that maybe ever to go on the U.S. balance sheet.”

Yesterday was a big day for revelations about the war on Iran. Jonah Kaplan of CBS News published photographs showing the damage caused to buildings, vehicles, and equipment at U.S. bases in the Middle East by Iranian strikes. Active service members leaked the photos to CBS News because, as one said, “This is major damage to our bases that hasn’t been communicated to the American public. We’re standing there with our eyes closed getting punched in the face.” “We’re not defending these bases,” the service member said. “We’re just watching them get destroyed.”

John Ismay of the New York Times reported on a new report from the Pentagon’s inspector general on Monday explaining that the first four months of the Iran war caused “strategic inventory shortfalls”; that Iranian strikes have destroyed “hundreds of buildings and structures” at U.S. bases in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates; that dozens of military aircraft have been damaged or destroyed; and that the Defense Department has limited facilities for medical treatment in the region and has had to relocate helicopters for medical evacuations from Iraq and Kuwait.

A new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the Iran war, which has taken 18 U.S. lives and wounded more than 800 servicemembers, has also cost the U.S. about $38 billion as of August 1 and could cost as much as $2 billion a month while it goes on, and that it will continue to drive inflation.

For the third time, the House passed a war powers resolution directing Trump to remove U.S. military personnel from hostilities against Iran unless Congress explicitly authorizes him to keep them there. Seven Republicans joined the Democrats to pass the measure by a vote of 220 to 204. Yesterday Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) blindsided House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) by introducing eight counts of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The first three articles accuse him of “waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.” The fourth accuses him of “ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties.” The fifth accuses him of directing “the extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels” in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The sixth accuses him of “suppressing free speech” through his attempts to silence Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a Navy veteran. The seventh article accuses him of the “kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader,” Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro. The final article charges Hegseth with waging an “unlawful war in Yemen,” in 2025.

Massie told CNN that he had kept his plan secret to prevent House leadership from keeping him from the floor to read the articles. To protect Republican lawmakers from having to take a stand either for or against the Iran war, Speaker Johnson canceled votes set for Thursday and sent the House home until November 9, 2026, after the midterm elections.

Johnson blasted Massie, saying: “Secretary Hegseth has done an extraordinary job, the Department of War. We’re in the middle of international conflicts right now, and we should not be playing games with national security.” As for sending lawmakers home early, he said: “It’s time for our members to go home to their districts and make their case to the American people, to go and explain all the great things we’ve done.”

Trump apparently does not think voters will swing behind the Republicans based on their record. News broke on Monday that the Supreme Court would not allow him to implement new rules that would allow the United States Postal Service to screen mail-in ballots, something Trump insisted was imperative to purify voting.

On Tuesday, he dropped the facade that the rule was about anything other than rigging the election and expressed anger that his three hand-picked appointees to the Supreme Court did not do his bidding. “Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court,” he posted. “This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years. These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court; they are merely a shell of their original selves.”

—Heather Cox Richardson

 

The Plague of American Authoritarianism

 

“…Rather than forcing a populace to adhere to a particular state ideology, the general public in the United States is largely depoliticized through the influence of corporations over schools, higher education, and other cultural apparatuses. The deadening of public values, civic consciousness, and critical citizenship are also the result of the work of anti-public intellectuals representing right-wing ideological and financial interests, a powerful corporate controlled media that are largely center-right, and a market-driven public pedagogy that reduces the obligations of citizenship to the endless consumption and discarding of commodities. In addition, a pedagogy of historical, social, and racial amnesia is constructed and circulated through a highly popular celebrity culture and its counterpart in corporate-driven news, television, radio, and entertainment to produce a culture of stupidity, censorship, and diversionary spectacles…

“What is particularly troublesome is the manifestations of totalitarianism in the discourse and proposed policy measures of the extremists that now govern the Republican Party and how this is taken up in the mainstream media. One finds in the rhetoric of Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and others a mix of war like values, expressions of racism, a hatred of women’s rights, unabashed support for the financial elite, a religious fundamentalism, a celebration of war, and a deep-seated hostility for all things public. Chris Christie sells himself to the American public as a bully and believes that threatening violence is a crucial element of leadership. This was on full display when he recently stated that teachers’ unions ‘are the single most destructive force in public education in America [and deserve] a punch in the face [xi]. 

“Threatening violence appears to be a powerful ideological register shared by many of the Republican Party candidates. Donald Trump comes close to supporting a form of racial cleansing by threatening to depart 11 million undocumented Mexican immigrants all the while demonizing them as rapists and criminals. This script has been played out before just prior to the genocide promoted in Nazi Germany. Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker want to abolish a woman’s right to abortion and go so far as to argue that they would not permit women to get an abortion even if their lives depended on it. Huckabee takes this threat even further. When Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi asked Huckabee if he would send ‘the FBI or the National Guard to close abortion clinics,’ he answered 'We'll see when I'm president' [xii]. Huckabee is a real piece of work stating at one point that he would deny an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim [xiii]. This hatred of women and the need to control and domesticate them to the crudest forms of male hegemony and control is central to all fascist regimes…”

from the Plague of American Authoritarianism by Henry Giroux

[xi] Chris Christie, “Chris Christie: Apologize for Threatening Teachers,” AFT A Union of Professionals, (August 15, 2015). Online at: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/chris-christie-apologize-for-threatening-teachers

[xii] Matt Taibbi, “Inside the GOP Clown Car,” Rolling Stone (August 12, 2015). Online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-gop-clown-car-20150812

[xiii] Emily Atkin, “Huckabee Supports Denying Abortion to 10-year-Old Rape Victim,” Think Progress (August 16, 2015). Online: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/16/3692100/huckabee-paraguay-rape-abortion/

Originally posted on this blog on August 26, 2015.

How a MAGA Influencer With Ties to Russia Became Trump’s Arctic Adviser

 

Reporting Highlights:

Foreign Affairs: Thomas Dans has backed taking over Greenland and advocated reestablishing ties with Russia, where he’s long done business — even sharing pro-Kremlin posts.

Business Opportunities: As U.S. Arctic Research Commission chair, Dans has championed a Dutch shipbuilder with which he had a business relationship.

Scientific Blowback: Tensions over Greenland flared after Dans, who has no formal scientific background, was appointed. Some Danish researchers said they won’t join the U.S. in research.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

For more than 40 years, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission has advised Congress and the president on what to study in the frigid and dynamic far north, from the environment to military security. It’s typically done so without making waves, led by people well-versed in science and public policy.

That was until December, when President Donald Trump appointed a Texas venture capitalist and MAGA influencer with no formal background in science as the commission’s chair. Since then, Thomas Dans has traveled the globe generating headlines. Serving as the administration’s main voice on the Arctic, he’s advanced some of the president’s wildest ambitions, like a takeover of Greenland, and rankled NATO allies in the process.

Yet as Dans holds forth in the U.S. and abroad, it’s not always clear where the administration’s agenda ends and his own begins. He has repeatedly said, for example, that the U.S. needs more icebreakers, ships that Trump has long viewed as critical to dominating the Arctic. In doing so, Dans has championed one shipbuilder in particular — Damen Shipyards, a Dutch company with which he had a business relationship.

“They’re the largest builder of icebreakers and ice-class vessels in the world,” Dans said at an event in Anchorage, Alaska, in April. At the time, his consultancy was working to help Damen land an icebreaker contract with the federal government.

As he’s spoken to audiences of government officials, diplomats, academics and journalists, Dans — who wears his Arctic commission lapel pin and exudes a professorial air — has also waded into foreign policy.

In the media and at public events, he’s backed Trump’s push to take over Greenland. And he’s advocated enthusiastically for closer U.S. relations with Russia — even as a bipartisan group of lawmakers calls for tougher sanctions on the country and more aid to Ukraine. Dans and Damen have long done business in Russia, and Dans has regularly shared social media posts that reflect a pro-Kremlin viewpoint.

“We want a peaceful Arctic, we want a peaceful world,” he said at an event a few days after he announced plans to travel to Moscow. “Russia and the United States gotta get along for that to happen.”

A nuclear-powered Russian icebreaker in the port of Murmansk after conducting ice trials in the Arctic Ocean in 2020. The Arctic’s melting ice has geopolitical consequences, with Russia and China conducting joint military exercises in the region. Pavel Lvov/Sputnik via AP

Opining so broadly on foreign policy is “far beyond” the Arctic Research Commission’s scientific mandate, said Fran Ulmer, who served as commission chair for more than nine years before being replaced by Trump in 2020. “And certainly outside the bounds of what the U.S. Arctic Research Commission has done in the past.”

Dans, whose consultancy Almiranta Strategies “advises investors and businesses working in the Arctic,” according to his profile on the Arctic commission’s website, is far from the first in the Trump administration to mingle public and personal interests. The finances of many senior officials and the industries they regulate have drawn scrutiny as Trump has disarmed government safeguards against conflicts.

“It’s become standard for people to pursue their personal financial interest,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of the nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen.

Under the law, Dans’ position gives him access to government information from other federal agencies — an arrangement that could benefit his private interests. Such potential conflicts are typically governed by federal ethics rules. But the nature of Dans’ role affords him more leeway than other appointees. Commission members are not considered government employees and thus not required to file an ethics form disclosing conflicts.

Do You Know About U.S. Government Deals, Finance and Investments Abroad?

“Tom Dans is doing a great job leading the Arctic Research Commission, and his shipbuilding expertise has helped him succeed in this role,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “The President appreciates all he is doing to advance American interests in the Arctic.”

The White House official said Dans is one of two commission members the law designates as representatives of “the interests of industry.” Even so, Dans’ lack of research experience stands out. The other industry rep is a Ph.D. and former director of the United States Geological Survey.

Dans declined multiple requests to be interviewed for this story and did not respond to written questions from ProPublica, but he told The New York Times this year that his post did not preclude him from working in private business.

The Arctic commission has arguably never been more important. The region is warming at unprecedented rates, accelerating sea-level rise and causing severe weather in the U.S. and elsewhere. The melting ice also has geopolitical consequences. Russia and China are conducting joint military exercises in the far north. New shipping lanes have opened there. And mineral deposits are becoming potentially more accessible.

At a public appearance in July, Dans cited the commission’s four priorities: military and national security, energy security, economic development in the Arctic and “what we’ll call ‘community security.’” He did not define the term.

From Russia, With Love

Dans has long been taken with Russia, the country that has by far the most Arctic coastline. His fondness dates back at least to seventh grade, when he says he was recruited to learn Russian in his Maryland public school. He later visited Moscow as an exchange student, then returned to work in finance in the mid-1990s.

He worked at a private equity fund financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which aimed to grow the private sector after the Soviet Union’s breakup. In a LinkedIn post last year, he reminisced about how he and Kirill Dmitriev, a Harvard-educated banker who now serves as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intermediary with Trump officials, traveled in the same circles early in their finance careers.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev last year. Dans has reminisced on social media about working in similar circles as Dmitriev after the fall of the Soviet Union. Dmitri Lovetsky/AP

Decades later, in Trump’s first term as president, Dans landed a job in the Treasury Department as a senior policy adviser for international affairs. There, he served on a secret National Security Council task force on U.S. control of Greenland, a role first reported by The New Yorker. 

A former Trump administration official told ProPublica the group’s purpose was to strengthen the United States’ strategic position in Greenland and devise policies to bring the two closer.

Perhaps because of that work, Trump named Dans to the Arctic Research Commission for the first time in late 2020. His tenure was short-lived. When President Joe Biden took office in 2021, the new administration fired Dans and three other Trump appointees.

Dans was angry.

“We were fired without notice and anonymously slandered by the White House for ‘lacking relevant expertise,’” he wrote in The Hill. “At the time, I was the first commissioner in the agency’s 37-year history to speak fluent Russian, the language of the world’s largest Arctic nation.”

Dans launched an investment firm with two other former Trump Treasury officials, but it was short-lived, closing in late 2023. That year, Dans said on Substack that he was the “first American” to launch an effort to buy the Helsinki Shipyard in Finland, where about half the global icebreaker fleet was built. One of its Russian owners at the time was a business partner of a former Putin deputy minister. The effort failed.

He traveled the world, talking with officials in places like Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Romania. He lobbied on behalf of the Kazakhstan Embassy and that country’s state-owned national oil and gas company, records show. He devised policy recommendations “for Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction” as a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, his LinkedIn profile says. 

He also contributed to Heritage’s federal workforce-slashing Project 2025, of which his twin brother Paul was director.

Then in May 2024, he launched a nonprofit called American Daybreak. Its goal was to foster ties between the U.S. and Greenland.

After Trump’s victory, Dans promised in comments on Substack that “the next Trump Admin is going to Make America a Great Arctic (MAGA) nation!” In early January 2025, Dans and American Daybreak helped arrange a visit by Donald Trump Jr. and late conservative activist Charlie Kirk to the Arctic island. He then sought to bring Vice President JD Vance’s wife, Usha, to watch a popular dog sled race (the trip was scaled back after protests). Dans also enlisted Greenland’s most outspoken MAGA enthusiast, a bricklayer named Jørgen Boassen, whom Dans has called a “good friend,” to generate support for U.S. control of Greenland.

“The Best Icebreakers in the World”

Dans was not named to a new full-time post in the second Trump administration. But he remained in the Trump orbit. He was a frequent guest on conservative activist and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast. He spoke for one episode from Romania, plugging far-right Romanian presidential candidate George Simion (who was later seen with Republicans at the Kennedy Center cutting up a cake shaped like Greenland with American flag frosting). 

“There’s a phenomenon here that’s the silent George Simion voter, kind of like your silent Trump voter,” Dans told Bannon. “And that’s significant.” (Simion lost and afterward unsuccessfully sought to have the election annulled.)

By August of last year, Dans found another opportunity in the private sector. He posted on LinkedIn that he was “very excited to announce that I am working with Damen Shipyards Group, one of the world’s leading shipbuilders.”

At the time, Dutch prosecutors were investigating the company for supplying Russia with equipment that they said could be used for military purposes, in violation of European sanctions. In his post, Dans shared a photo of himself arm-in-arm with three high-ranking company executives, including Rutger Dolk, who was later detained by Dutch authorities as part of the probe. The case is ongoing. (Dolk did not respond to a request for comment. In response to questions, Damen shared a press release that said it “has always acted in accordance with the applicable sanctions packages and that full transparency has been exercised about its activities.”)

Dans’ LinkedIn post announcing his work with Damen Shipyards. Dutch prosecutors were investigating the company at the time for supplying Russia with equipment that could have been used for military purposes. Rutger Dolk, far right, a company executive, was later detained as part of the probe.  Screenshot and redactions by ProPublica

Dans said he was working with the shipbuilder “to bring some of the best icebreakers in the world to the United States” and noted that the U.S. Navy had recently chosen Damen “to help it fast-track a new fleet” of a different type of vessel: up to 35 medium-sized ships to move troops and supplies to shorelines. According to records, the Navy bought the designs for the ship from Damen for $3.3 million without going through the typical bidding process, saying it would save time and money to go with a “proven” design. (The Navy did not respond to requests for comment.)

In December, Trump appointed Dans to head the Arctic Research Commission. The announcement said Dans’ primary focus as a businessman was “shipbuilding and transportation where, among other projects, he is leading an effort to develop icebreakers and ice-class vessels for the United States while helping restore America’s Maritime Base.”

Since then, Dans has championed Damen in conversations and at a public appearance. In April, he said that “outside of the commission, I wear a hat working for one of the world’s largest shipbuilders, which is a group called Damen.”

While ProPublica was reporting this story, Damen terminated its agreement with Dans, which would have paid him if the company got a contract to build an icebreaker.

If Dans was seeking to advance Damen’s interests, he may have been required under the law to register either as a lobbyist or a foreign agent, said Josh Rosenstein, an attorney who is an expert on the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Documents show he’d done neither.

“It certainly would raise questions, you know, in my mind about what sort of interactions he, on behalf of Damen, had with the U.S. government,” Rosenstein said. “And with whom.” The White House pushed back. “These so-called ‘experts’ have no idea what they are talking about,” said Kelly, the spokesperson.

Whether Dans has other business ties that could impact his government job is unclear. When at the Treasury, he reported holding a stake in Global Restaurant Management LLC, the parent company of a firm that operated multiple Papa Johns restaurants in Russia at the time. The status of that investment — which Dans reported had a value of between $250,000 and $500,000 — isn’t publicly known today because he’s no longer required to disclose his financial interests.

Christopher Wynne, who headed Global Restaurant Management, said he could not discuss another person’s investments. Unlike most high-level presidential appointees, the Arctic commission chair — who is eligible only for a stipend of up to about $55,000 a year — is not a federal employee under the law. And while the commission has a policy seeking to prevent conflicts of interest, there are no penalties for violating it.

Dans’ outside commitments could be problematic if he used his access to the federal government to improperly benefit another employer or country, said Virginia Canter, who served as an ethics lawyer at the White House and other agencies during Republican and Democratic presidencies. “The fact that he has foreign entanglements and access to government-wide information,” she said, “it should raise national security concerns.”

ProPublica asked the White House about Canter’s comments but it did not respond.

A Chilly Reception in Greenland

Protesters gathered outside the U.S. Consulate this January in Nuuk after Trump threatened to annex Greenland. Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

Tensions over Greenland, which is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, have flared since Dans returned to the Arctic commission. A month into Dans’ tenure as commission chair, Trump said he would take Greenland “one way or the other.” He initially refused to rule out military force. Dans echoed Trump, telling the BBC that month that “everything’s on the table.”

While Dans is a minor player in the federal government, “when he speaks, international audiences and officials see him as representing U.S. policy,” said Heather Conley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In his first five months as chair, Dans spoke often to the foreign press and traveled to locales that included Denmark, Norway, Italy and Canada — as well as Mar-a-Lago in Florida and the Explorer’s Club in New York City, records show. The commission spent about $87,000 on his travel expenses.

He did not return to Greenland. But the administration’s rhetoric put Denmark on a war footing. The country sent soldiers to Greenland armed with explosives and plans to blow up airfields in the event of an American invasion. At one point, a Greenlandic politician told ProPublica, some schoolchildren were instructed to practice hiding under their desks in case of such an event.

Greenlanders have repeated a refrain: Open for business, not for sale. Dans’ remarks only seem to have further deepened divisions. In February, while at a conference in Norway, he was caught on a hot mic telling a Greenlandic politician that “the check’s in the mail.” A former chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, Michael Sfraga, was at the same conference and publicly told the politician to “rip the check up.”

Trump has continued to press the cause. In mid-July, he posted a picture on Truth Social of a map that included Greenland with the American flag superimposed on it. The rhetoric has had consequences for Arctic research. Several Danish researchers said they will no longer participate in research with the U.S. One noted that her colleagues avoided Dans at a recent conference.

Dans’ current role in Greenland is unclear. He said at a recent conference he is not involved in talks among negotiators for the U.S., Greenland and Denmark that began earlier this year. In May, Trump’s special envoy to Greenland, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, and the U.S. ambassador to Denmark, Ken Howery, attended a business conference in the capital of Nuuk without Dans. Landry and Howery appeared for photo ops and opened a new, bigger consulate building, as protesters shouted outside.

A White House official told ProPublica that Greenland is “critical from the standpoint of U.S. national security” and “we are very optimistic that we’re on a good trajectory” in the diplomatic talks. The official did not address Dans’ role.

Reposting Russian Propaganda

Official visits to Russia have been exceedingly rare since the U.S. and its European allies froze ties with the country after it invaded Ukraine in 2022, yet at his appearance in Anchorage in April Dans announced that he was planning to go to Moscow “probably in the next month” to discuss research cooperation. The trip never happened; the State Department’s official guidance on Russia is “Do Not Travel for Any Reason.”

Asked about Dans’ push for reestablishing ties and travel plans, a State Department spokesperson referred questions to Dans. His social media feed on X is filled with foreign news accounts, sometimes from outlets sympathetic to the Kremlin. He reposted a story last October from Kazakh media on Putin’s warning that the U.S. would fracture relations with Russia if it supplied Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles.

Dans’ repost on X of a Kazakh media outlet. The post reads: “Putin warned that supplies of ‘Tomahawk’ missiles to Kyiv would destroy relations between Russia and the United States.” Screenshot by ProPublica

In May, he wrote of his grandfather’s participation in the perilous Murmansk Run to supply the Soviet Union during World War II. “Happy Victory Day,” Dans wrote in Russian and English, reposting a video of Putin from Russian state media laying flowers at a soldiers’ memorial. The original poster of the video has been called a source of Russian propaganda by the Ukrainian government.

“Everyone obviously needs to be incredibly cautious when you’re reposting Russian information,” Conley said, because such posts could promote a narrative that is “against U.S. national interests.”

Posting “Happy Victory Day” in Russian may sound innocuous, but it is “a super-loaded thing to do right now,” she added. Putin has conjured Russia’s World War II victory when talking about Ukraine, even equating Ukrainians to Nazis in Germany.

The White House did not respond to questions about Dans’ Russia-related posts.

Under Putin, Russia has tied its future to the Arctic and the region’s natural resources, including liquefied natural gas. U.S. sanctions, which targeted the country’s energy sector, have set those efforts back — something that Russia has sought to reverse in ongoing talks with the Trump administration.

Dans has remarked on the developments on social media, calling Dmitriev, the Russian who now serves as a key Putin negotiator with the Trump administration, “the Kremlin’s ace in the hole.”

“We’re older now and have some grey hair, but it’s neat to see who the Trump Administration is negotiating with,” Dans wrote of Dmitriev, who rose to head one of Russia’s sovereign wealth funds before being sanctioned by the Biden Treasury Department in 2022 for his ties to Putin and work raising funds from the U.S.

Asked about Dans’ calls for cooperation, Kelly, the White House spokesperson, said: “President Trump and his entire administration are willing to work with anyone in order to advance American interests, including peace in the Russia-Ukraine War. This approach has helped the United States bring both sides of the conflict together for historic peace talks.”

Dans seemed to downplay any differences with the Trump administration over Russia in one recent appearance, where he told an audience that included State Department officials, Russian Embassy personnel and Greenlandic diplomats that “getting Russia-Ukraine war ended, I think, is a priority. Stopping the killing.”

But the following month, in July, Dans opened and closed his remarks at a conference in Aspen by calling Russia a “neighbor.” He again urged that the U.S. repair its relationship. “We need to be able to communicate with the Russians,” he said. “We’ve got some very important things to clear up with them with Ukraine, absolutely, but we have to work towards peace in the Arctic.” Kelly said there was “nothing controversial about Mr. Dans’ remarks calling for an end to years of bloodshed and expanded dialogue.”

Doris Burke, Lynn Dombek and Alex Mierjeski contributed research. Joel Jacobs contributed data reporting.

Contributors

Heather Vogell