Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Stephen Hubbard is headed home: “Russia has released a retired American teacher who had been imprisoned on charges of fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff said Wednesday at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg.”

* In related news: “Special envoy Steve Witkoff heaped praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, the latest sign that Ukrainian and European efforts to get Washington to ramp up pressure on Russia to end the war are failing. … ‘You talk so much about my president, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute that, I commend you, and I thank you again,’ Witkoff said.”

* Even some Republicans criticized Witkoff’s gushing praise for the head of a government that imprisoned Hubbard in the first place: “WTF, Steve? Look up the definition of ‘humanitarian,’’’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., posted on X. “You should go back to Ukraine and ask the families of the children Putin has kidnapped and murdered whether they agree your friend Putin is a ‘humanitarian.’” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, responded, “Putin is stone cold killer.”

* In the Middle East: “The US State Department has ordered some diplomats and family members ​to depart from its missions in Saudi Arabia ‌and is planning to move out family members from a number of other US missions in the Gulf, US officials told Reuters.”

* Crisis conditions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Health officials in California and Washington, facing outbreaks of measles this past spring, asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May to validate a test that can diagnose 500 cases in eight hours. They did not hear back for two months.”

* An intensifying climate emergency: “Losing more ground in the fight against climate change, humanity is heading for a hotter world than experts projected last year — and the United States is a big reason for that, a new United Nations report says.”

* Good for Kagan for speaking out: “With Americans deciding the congressional balance of power in November’s midterm elections, Justice Elena Kagan is reminding the nation of how the Supreme Court’s decisions have shaped the ballot. It’s an antidemocratic shape, according to the Obama-appointed justice’s remarks Tuesday at Catholic University’s law school in Washington.”

* I’m with the majority on this one: “A majority of Americans say artificial intelligence is a bad thing for society and about two-thirds oppose the construction of new data centers in the U.S., with opposition even higher to building data centers in people’s own communities, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.”

* Facebook’s parent company: “Meta is finally being forced to pay for its near-decade-old falsehoods about the Cambridge Analytica scandal that saw millions of users’ data harvested for political purposes. On Wednesday, a judge in New Mexico ordered the social media company to pay a $25 billion penalty following a jury’s determination in late September that the company’s executives broke state laws with knowingly false statements they made in the wake of the scandal.”

* Speaking of New Mexico, state Attorney General Raúl Torrez “has filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein’s personal lawyer, Darren Indyke, and accountant, Richard Kahn, accusing them of helping to facilitate and conceal Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 10.21.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito further distanced themselves from their Supreme Court colleagues on Wednesday when they were the only two jurists to note their objections to the court’s refusal to let the Trump administration immediately enforce its preferred policy on gender-affirming care in prison.

The court’s unsigned order contained no explanation from the majority or the dissenting duo. Still, it’s the latest data point showing Thomas and Alito backing the administration even when their fellow GOP appointees — including President Donald Trump’s own three appointees — decline to do so.

Wednesday’s order follows last month’s Supreme Court rejection of Trump’s desired mail-ballot restrictions for the midterm elections. That loss led the president to lash out at the court, including his own appointees, while calling Thomas and Alito “legends.”

Asked during a recently published CBS News interview about a Wall Street Journal study showing that Alito sided with Trump more than any of his colleagues, the justice said he’s “not trying to decide cases to help President Trump.”

Whatever his or Thomas’ intentions, their latest actions spotlight their dynamic of voting for the president’s position when other justices don’t. Their votes come ahead of the rapidly approaching Election Day in less than two weeks, with voters set to determine which party will control Senate confirmation of justices for the near future.

Alito said he’s staying on the court at least through this court term, even if Democrats win back Senate control. Thomas has likewise not signaled that he is stepping down imminently. If he stays on the court through the next term, he will become the longest-serving justice ever. In their late 70s, Thomas and Alito are the two eldest members of the current court, but they aren’t very old by the court’s historical standards.

Yet if Trump has an opportunity to appoint their successors or any other justices before he leaves office in 2029, their latest votes underscore why he will likely model his next selection(s) on them, rather than on the justices he has put on the bench thus far, who have backed him in a series of significant cases but not all of them.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Supreme Court’s split on gender care highlights Alito and Thomas as pro-Trump outliers appeared first on MS NOW.

By any fair measure, Donald Trump’s second term has been brutal for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a variety of reasons. At the heart of the problem is the president’s stated determination not merely to brazenly politicize federal disaster aid, but to destroy the agency altogether, for reasons he has struggled to explain.

In May 2025, then-acting FEMA chief Cameron Hamilton testified before Congress that it would be in the public’s interest if FEMA continued to exist. He was fired the next day, because Hamilton’s line was at odds with Trump’s stated position, which is that FEMA should be destroyed and states left to their own devices.

A year later, after quite a few acting FEMA administrators had come and gone, the president made an unexpected move: He brought Hamilton back for a second stint, and the Senate confirmed him soon after.

I can’t help but notice that Hamilton’s position is far more in line with the White House’s than it was early last year. Politico reported:

The Trump administration’s disaster chief told state officials Tuesday they must increase their financial reserves and emergency capabilities to handle most disasters on their own, without federal help.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Cameron Hamilton gave unprecedented detail at a conference in Little Rock, Arkansas, about the administration’s long-planned shift of disaster responsibilities to states.

“Every state must have the appropriate financial reserves” and other abilities “to ensure that recovery efforts can start immediately and not necessarily be held up simply because of the federal [disaster] declaration process,” Hamilton said, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by Politico.

“A future that I hope we would shoot for is one where we wouldn’t require as many disasters because the capability of states is so high and so substantial,” Hamilton added, referring to presidential authorizations of federal disaster aid.

Whether the current FEMA chief is allowed to say so or not, the Trump-backed model that Hamilton endorsed will not and cannot work. State and local governments simply do not have the wherewithal — financial resources, personnel, equipment, etc. — to respond to major disasters. It’s why FEMA was created in the first place: The federal government can marshal effective responses before and after a crisis in ways others cannot.

As Politico’s report added, Eric Holdeman, a longtime emergency management official, wrote on LinkedIn on Monday in response to Hamilton’s memo, “There are many states with [minuscule] emergency management offices and budgets. There are states with slim rainy-day funds and no capacity to make up for a lack of federal disaster recovery funds — without RAISING TAXES!”

Holdeman added, “Reducing the number of federal disaster declarations will be difficult and its implementation will be impossible! All Presidents, not just the one we have today, will ignore such a policy when it becomes politically expedient to do so.”

Nevertheless, in the leaked audio recording of Hamilton’s comments, the FEMA administrator said to expect changes to get underway in earnest “in the next six months.”

If there’s a Democratic Congress next year, it’s a safe bet that the administration will get meaningful pushback long before such plans are implemented. Watch this space.

The post FEMA chief tells states they shouldn’t count on disaster aid under Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

Most Americans probably understand that politics can be an ugly business. As long as there have been campaigns, there have been candidates and parties trying to appeal to voters’ worst instincts by aiming for the gutter.

But once in a while, a campaign ad comes along that manages to disgust a wide variety of decent people, regardless of party or ideology. MS NOW reported:

In a new, unaired attack ad against Amy Acton, the Democrat running for governor of Ohio, her estranged mother speaks directly to the camera to accuse her of lying about her past.

“Don’t vote for people who lie,” says Donna Arthur — who married a man whom Acton accused of sexually abusing her as a child — in the video.

The campaign team for Vivek Ramaswamy, Acton’s Republican rival, confirmed to The Associated Press that it produced the ad and plans to spend $4 million airing it, apparently indifferent to the condemnations.

“It’s not surprising that Vivek Ramaswamy has stooped to such a despicable low as to attempt to turn the sexual abuse Amy endured at 12 years old from our birth mother’s husband into a political talking point,” Acton’s brother, Philip Stearns, said in a statement.

“After he was arrested and Amy and I were removed from their custody, our birth mother stayed married to Amy’s rapist until he died,” Stearns added. “This desperate, disgusting attack reveals exactly who Vivek Ramaswamy is at his core — a pathetic excuse for a man who is willing to hurt anyone as long as it gets him what he wants.”

Plenty of Republicans also slammed the vile attack, including former GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley, who said via social media that Ramaswamy is “a bad guy.”

One day later, however, JD Vance traveled to Ohio, in large part in the hopes of boosting Ramaswamy, who’s trailed Acton in several recent statewide polls, with time running out in the election cycle. Any chance the vice president might take the high road on the year’s most offensive attack ad?

Evidently not.

On Wednesday morning, Vance, himself an Ohio Republican, initially said the propriety of the ad (or lack thereof) was “not really my concern.” But he didn’t stop there.

Reporter: "Vivek Ramaswamy's campaign put out a controversial ad featuring his opponent's mother…was [that] appropriate?"Vance: "I'm a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans…whining more about that ad than they are about what…Democrats want to do to the United States of America."

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-10-21T16:25:47.443Z

“I have to admit that I’m a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans across the country who are whining more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America,” the vice president said.

In other words, Vance isn’t disgusted by the ad, which features a woman who sided with her alleged rapist husband over her own daughter, whom she calls a “liar”; Vance is disgusted by Republicans who have a problem with that ad.

Soon after, the vice president headlined a rally and went even further, insisting that the commercial “calls it out like it is.” Vance went on to accuse Acton of somehow controlling independent news organizations, adding that Ramaswamy has never complained about any of the criticisms he’s faced — which might be credible if anyone had ever targeted the GOP nominee with an ad this abhorrent.

We’ll see soon enough whether the commercial ends up backfiring on Ramaswamy, who almost certainly wouldn’t have pursued such an attack if he thought he was likely to win the gubernatorial race. But in the meantime, Vance just faced a test of his personal character, and he flunked.

The post JD Vance is ‘disgusted,’ not by Ramaswamy’s vile ad but by its bipartisan critics appeared first on MS NOW.

A group of veterans has made very serious claims about contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, a U.S. Marine Corps training facility in North Carolina. The fact that Donald Trump brought this up at his latest campaign rally in the state was unexpected, but more important still is what the president promised to do.

Trump on Camp Lejeune water contamination claims: "If we win the House and Senate, I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible … if we don't win, there's no money."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-21T00:56:42.020Z

“[I]f we win the House and the Senate,” he said, referring to Republicans, “I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible and get it off the books and get it finished.”

Trump added moments later, however, “If we don’t win, there’s no money. If we do win, you’re getting it.”

For now, let’s not dwell on the fact that, in the recent past, it would’ve been considered a real controversy for an incumbent to talk about “directing” his Justice Department to do much of anything.

Instead, what we’re left with is another extraordinary example of Trump’s radical approach to transactional politics: He’ll deliver worthwhile results, the president keeps saying, but only if voters make him happy by delivering the election results he wants to see.

Consider the recent pattern:

Sept. 16: Trump told a North Carolina audience he wouldn’t approve federal disaster relief funds for the state unless they elected former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley to the Senate. (He seemed to be kidding about this, though it wasn’t funny, and with him, it’s sometimes tough to tell.)

Oct. 3: Trump told an Ohio audience that his administration would “very strongly” consider the state for the Space Force Academy, but only if Republicans win in the midterms.

Oct. 3: At the same campaign rally, the president said he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they don’t elect a Republican governor.

Oct. 17: Trump told a Kentucky audience that his administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred GOP Senate candidate won.

Oct. 19: Trump told a Kansas audience he was prepared to approve a yearlong waiver for selling fuel blended with 15% ethanol (the E15 policy), but if Kansans elect a Democratic senator, “I’m not doing it.”

Almost daily: At effectively every 2026 campaign rally, Trump vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — but only if the election results make him happy. (On Tuesday night in North Carolina, the president explicitly said, “If we lose, you get nothing. You’re going to get nothing. If we lose, you get nothing.”)

The Camp Lejeune comments were outrageous, but they were clearly part of an unsubtle pattern.

In case this isn’t obvious, there’s nothing about a Democratic-led Congress that would prevent Trump from delivering any of these benefits to any of these states. The president made the policy commitments conditional anyway, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

In any normal American election, candidates tell voters about the kinds of priorities they’ll advance if elected. That’s not controversial in the slightest. What Trump is saying is qualitatively different — and vastly worse. The incumbent Republican is effectively telling voters, in state after state, that he could deliver for them, but if he’s not satisfied with the election results, he simply won’t bother.

So they better make sure he’s satisfied with the election results.

Trump has goodies he wants to hand out, and the public will benefit from his benevolence — unless voters dare to hurt his feelings. This isn’t how elections are supposed to work in a healthy democracy. Evidently, the president doesn’t care.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s fixation on transactional politics becomes an election-season scandal appeared first on MS NOW.

With Americans deciding the congressional balance of power in November’s midterm elections, Justice Elena Kagan is reminding the nation of how the Supreme Court’s decisions have shaped the ballot.

It’s an antidemocratic shape, according to the Obama-appointed justice’s remarks Tuesday at Catholic University’s law school in Washington.

Kagan said the court “has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effect of their rulings on how the political system works and has created a democracy that does not work as well as it should.”

Her off-bench comments reprised impassioned criticisms she has made in dissenting opinions from the GOP-appointed majority’s rulings on gerrymandering in 2019 and earlier this year on the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance.

In 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause, the majority said partisan gerrymandering claims present “political questions” that courts can’t answer. Writing the dissent for what was then a four-justice minority, she said the case marked “the first time ever” that the court “refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.”

Writing for the current three-justice minority this year, Kagan called the six-justice majority’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.” Leading the same trio on campaign finance, in dissent from a ruling that struck down more limits and overturned another precedent in the process, she said the majority “jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy’s integrity.”

On Tuesday, she said the American people “look around this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare.” She added, “And they’re right.”

The justices are in between their October and November hearing sessions, but they will continue to field any emergency applications that come to them regarding the midterms or anything else. Currently, there is a pending application from New Hampshire Republicans to prevent the use of student IDs in voting.

The justices have weighed in on an array of election disputes already this year — and they haven’t always backed the GOP. But whatever the outcome in the midterms, Kagan’s comments provide a useful backdrop for understanding the political landscape the court has helped set.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Justice Kagan reminds Americans of Supreme Court majority’s antidemocratic actions appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* With less than two weeks remaining in the election cycle, and with early voting underway in much of the country, a new national poll from The New York Times and Siena University offers nothing but good news for Democrats.

For example, the survey found Democrats with an 11-poing advantage over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, 52% to 41%. The same poll showed Democrats ahead on every major issue, as well as big leads on questions such as which party “understands the problems facing people like me,” best represents “the working class,” can “fix the problems facing people like me” and “keeps its promises.”

The latest national CNN poll pointed in largely the same direction and showed Democrats ahead on the generic congressional ballot by 10 points, 49% to 39%.

* As if Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas weren’t already struggling enough, an MS NOW analysis of the incumbent’s campaign-finance filings found that the senator still has no one on his campaign payroll, reinforcing ongoing concerns that Marshall is using his taxpayer-funded Senate staff for campaign purposes.

* In Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist poll found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed with a narrow lead over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, 50% to 48%.

* Donald Trump held a campaign rally in North Carolina on Tuesday on behalf of Senate hopeful Michael Whatley, though the president seemed to concede that he expects former Gov. Roy Cooper to win the race. “He’s going to become your senator and it’s crazy,” Trump said, referring to the Democratic nominee.

* Though several billionaires have already taken steps to give Republicans a boost in the midterm elections, one notable billionaire is suddenly stepping up on behalf of Democrats: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new $80 million investment in support of Democratic efforts to reclaim a congressional majority.

* In case campaign ads created by artificial intelligence weren’t bad enough, Democrats are fighting GOP-led efforts to use AI-generated robocalls ahead of this year’s elections.

* Florida Republicans are so concerned about a new Democratic ad highlighting the Hope Florida scandal that GOP officials are threatening to criminally prosecute television stations that air the commercial.

Meanwhile, in Florida’s gubernatorial race, the Democratic Governors Association is making a new $1 million investment in support of Rep. David Jolly’s candidacy. And on Tuesday, Bill Clinton campaigned with Jolly in the former president’s first appearance of the cycle.

* And in New Hampshire’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, former Sen. John Sununu has a new attack ad that takes aim at House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, despite the fact that the California Democrat hasn’t been a congressional leader in nearly four years, and despite the fact that she’s retiring this year. This won’t help the Republican candidate shake off criticisms that he’s more focused on the past than the future.

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.21.26: Democrats’ lead grows on the generic ballot appeared first on MS NOW.

“Il nuovo ospedale Regina Margherita nel programma Inail”, “Intesa operativa Regione-Inail per costruire sette nuovi ospedali”, “Nuovo ospedale a Padova Est, sarà l’Inail a costruirlo: ‘Si entra nella fase operativa’,” “Il nuovo Umberto I a Pietralata sarà costruito con i fondi dell’Inail. In arrivo un miliardo”: un fioccare di notizie accompagnate da conferenze stampa di assessori e presidenti di Regione che si fanno belli in vista delle prossime elezioni. Però, di ospedali Inail veri – intendendoli come edifici con dentro impianti, personale e pazienti – neanche l’ombra.

A spararle grosse arriva anche la Conferenza Stato-Regioni: “OSPEDALI, IL MODELLO INAIL | “Così Investimenti e manutenzione liberano risorse per l’assistenza”; in pratica, secondo loro, i nuovi ospedali arrivano già belli che confezionati da un Ente pieno di soldi e di efficienza specchiata, così le Regioni hanno più risorse per ridurre le liste d’attesa e aumentare le prestazioni sanitarie, come i cittadini constatano felici ogni giorno. Allora vai a cercare sul sito dell’Inail dove sono questi benedetti ospedali Inail per sapere dove gli italiani sono più felici: non c’è e non c’è neppure una lista degli interventi in corso, con l’indicazione dello stato di avanzamento prima della pratica (progetti, appalti ecc.) e poi dei lavori. Cercate anche voi.

Poi c’è la realtà: al momento nessun ospedale Inail è stato completato, in nessuno sono iniziati i lavori, nessun appalto risulta aggiudicato. Siamo ai preliminari, agli studi, ai tavoli istituzionali, alle valutazioni di impatto, alla formazione dei computi economici, con documenti che vanno e vengono da Roma, a volte con intervalli semestrali che richiedono nuovi incarichi per aggiornare i prezzi, come un gioco dell’oca che vede passare gli anni, invecchiare la popolazione, curata sempre più in ritardo e in strutture fatiscenti.

In questa gara a chi la spara più grossa il Piemonte primeggia. Il presidente Cirio e l’assessore Riboldi annunciano ciclicamente nuove roboanti realizzazioni che stanno sempre per partire, ma non partono mai. Per questo, nella primavera scorsa, il Consigliere Regionale M5S Pasquale Coluccio, stanco delle loro bufale, amplificate dai velinari piemontesi – i due si vantavano di aver ottenuto un finanziamento di due miliardi di euro per realizzare l’intero piano per 7 nuovi ospedali – ha promosso un’analisi riferita agli Investimenti Inail, all’edilizia sanitaria e all’effettiva capacità di spesa dell’Istituto.

I suoi colleghi parlamentari ne hanno tratto un’interrogazione istruttiva al Ministro Schillaci in cui gli chiedono di chiarire l’effettivo avanzamento del programma di finanziamento delle strutture ospedaliere di Inail. Al momento non si dispone della risposta.

Tra le debolezze che l’analisi mette in evidenza c’è quella della struttura che l’Istituto dedica alla realizzazione del suo piano di edilizia sociale. La fragilità è nota: per l’esempio l’Asl Cuneo 1, che quasi un anno fa ha mandato all’Istituto tutta la documentazione necessaria alla realizzazione del nuovo ospedale di Savigliano, attende ancora l’esito dell’istruttoria tecnica da parte dell’Istituto. Nel frattempo, i costi di costruzione sono aumentati, quindi bisognerà di nuovo mettere mano al Progetto di Fattibilità Tecnica Economica, a cui seguirà la verifica di Inail, sperando che nel frattempo non intervenga un’altra crisi mondiale a riportarci indietro nelle caselle di questo gioco dell’oca senza fine.

Le autorità politiche regionali non possono non conoscere la realtà dei fatti, ma prendono in giro gli elettori creduloni.

L’inserimento dei nuovi ospedali del Piemonte nel Piano triennale di edilizia sociale dell’Inail risale al 4 febbraio 2021, quando su richiesta di Cirio l’allora Presidente Conte firmò, insieme ai Ministri Speranza e Catalfo, il Dpcm “Iniziative urgenti di elevata utilità sociale nel campo dell’edilizia sanitaria…”. Al Presidente Cirio (Forza Italia), in carica dal 2019, va riconosciuta l’abilità di vendere per fresca una vecchia minestra che tra poco compirà 5 anni senza combinare nulla, se non innamorarsi, presto deluso, di investitori privati deludenti con i partenariati pubblico-privato (PPP) di cui ho abbondantemente dato conto sul blog.

C’è però una questione che supera tutte le altre: l’Inail comunica che nel 2025 i morti sul lavoro sono stati 1093, mica pochi. Leggendo l’analisi commissionata da Coluccio sul Bilancio dell’Ente, balza agli occhi un’evidenza che agghiaccia: Inail riscuote ogni anno oltre 10,3 miliardi di euro di contributi versati dalle Aziende che assicurano i dipendenti, dunque soldi dei lavoratori. A queste somme si aggiungono rendite patrimoniali e trasferimenti dallo Stato, 13,6 mld di entrate. Le uscite sono 11,9 mld. Da qui un avanzo finanziario che caratterizza da sempre il bilancio Inail e che si accumula anno per anno presso la Tesoreria Centrale dello Stato.

Siamo a circa 50 mld: significa che, con i contributi non spesi per prestazioni destinate agli assicurati, l’Inail fa da banca allo Stato gratis perché non riceve interesse sui capitali che lascia nella Tesoreria. Lo Stato riconosce oltre il 4% di interesse ai sottoscrittori dei Btp, invece la remunerazione del deposito presso la Tesoreria è pari a 0% poiché gli introiti vengono registrati su un conto corrente infruttifero.

Questo è il vero grande scandalo dell’Inail, ancora più grave perché in palese conflitto con la sua ragione sociale, la prevenzione degli infortuni sul lavoro. Così si capisce meglio perché il rinnovo degli incarichi di direttore, presidente, e consiglieri di amministrazione di Inail diventa un affare di Stato; non si tratta solo di poltronifici, è che l’Inail finanzia lo Stato coi soldi dei lavoratori, ci vuole gente fidata a guardia del bancomat. Gente che sappia evocare la mancanza di risorse per rimandare l’assunzione degli ispettori per controllare i luoghi di lavoro e le condizioni degli addetti.

Il Piemonte è una delle regioni con più ospedali finanziati dall’Inail (sulla carta). Non ne è partito nessuno, sono partiti incarichi milionari per studi e progettazioni, pareri legali. Contenti così?

L'articolo Dei nuovi ospedali Inail annunciati, nemmeno l’ombra: il Piemonte vince la gara a chi la spara più grossa proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

His case has become a reference point for debates on dissent, prosecution, and custodial care in Uttar Pradesh.

Si chiama schizofrenia sociale ed è il risultato di un governo di Destra che dal 2022 risponde ad ogni problema con la punizione, la forza, la disciplina, l’arroganza del potere. Ciò che è accaduto in questi giorni a Milano altro non è che la prevedibile risposta a chi da quattro anni prova a zittire tutti. Ve lo ricordate il contrasto ai rave party? E il Decreto Caivano? Le norme più stringenti contro le occupazioni abusive? I metal detector nelle scuole? Il voto in condotta? L’introduzione del reato di “blocco stradale”? L’inasprimento delle pene per la criminalità minorile? Il divieto dell’uso degli smartphone in classe fino alla terza media? L’esame orale obbligatorio alla maturità? L’articolo undici ter del codice di comportamento disciplinare per i dipendenti dello Stato che impedisce di pubblicare sui social contenuti, commenti o espressioni che possano ledere il prestigio, il decoro o l’immagine dell’amministrazione di appartenenza? Le ispezioni di Valditara?

L’elenco è lungo e a questa lista va aggiunto l’aumento delle disuguaglianze economiche oltre al fatto che alcuni studi universitari basati sulle metriche Istat hanno isolato una categoria sociale in forte aumento in Italia: i “cittadini scontenti” (disgruntled). Si tratta di italiani che, a differenza del passato, partecipano attivamente alla vita sociale (votano, fanno volontariato, si informa), ma nutrono una profonda e radicata sfiducia negli altri e nello Stato.

Questo contrasto genera un atteggiamento cinico. Proprio i più giovani hanno provato in tutti i modi a dire la loro: al referendum sulla giustizia, all’esame di Stato, in occasione delle proteste sulla guerra tra Israele e Palestina, sui social, nelle loro aule ma non è bastato. Nessuno li ha presi davvero sul serio. Risultato? Il cortocircuito di un Paese: giovani (pacifici) contro altri giovani (violenti); adulti contro i ragazzi; adolescenti migranti contro compagni italiani e viceversa; politici che si accusano a vicenda; insegnanti contro i poliziotti; poliziotti contro i ragazzini e quest’ultimi in guerra con i primi.

Non è un caso nemmeno che il tutto sia avvenuto a Milano: una città edonista dove si respira l’individualismo e dove si toccano con mano le differenze sociali solo camminando per la strada. Inutile ora cercare di chiudere la stalla quando i buoi sono scappati. Troppo tardi. Scriveva Sartre: “Che cosa vi aspettavate quando si sciolse il bavaglio che aveva reso mute le loro bocche? Che cantassero le vostre lodi’”.

L'articolo Caos Milano: la responsabilità è solo della Destra proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

As part of an extended riff on his animosity toward Europe and the NATO alliance, Donald Trump did express a degree of gratitude toward the traditional U.S. allies about a development that only happened in the president’s imagination.

Trump says NATO was "nice enough to give us Greenland. We got Greenland."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T18:44:47.130Z

NATO members, the president asserted, “were nice enough to give us Greenland, despite all the bad talk.”

“‘Oh, he’s not going to get it,’” Trump added, mocking his critics. “We got it; we got Greenland.”

No, we didn’t.

To be sure, the rhetoric was wrong but familiar. At a campaign event in Arizona last week, the president also said that Greenland “was owned by Denmark,” but it has since been added “to our beautiful plate.” Earlier in the day, Trump posted an item to his social media platform in which he referred to “our new and beautiful Greenland,” suggesting U.S. ownership of the Arctic island.

Five days earlier, the president headlined a rally in New York, where he boasted to attendees, “I also, by the way, got Greenland. I hope you’re happy about that.”

I’m not in a position to say with certainty whether Trump is deliberately trying to mislead the public or is genuinely confused about something even he ought to be able to understand. But to the extent that people might be tempted to believe the president, it’s probably worth emphasizing that the United States didn’t “get” Greenland; it’s not “ours”; and at no point was it added to our “plate.” As The New York Times reported in September:

On Tuesday, he signed a document that paves the way to expanding the U.S. military presence on the island, opening new bases. But it explicitly stops short of conveying any territory to the United States. And no one — especially Denmark, which governs the vast but mostly empty space — wanted to emphasize that point, for fear that Mr. Trump might renounce the agreement he had just hailed as “tremendous for Europe and for the United States.”

For Mr. Trump, it was a major retreat. He first raised the possibility of buying Greenland during his first term and never let go of the idea.

I can appreciate why the president finds this embarrassing. He did, after all, make a “100%” guarantee to Americans that he would acquire the island — nine months before he settled for a deal that gave him what he already had.

Joseph Cirincione, the vice chair of the Center for International Policy and a longtime expert on nuclear policy, described the deal as a “complete farce” designed to do little more than “soothe Trump’s unstable ego.”

The more the president peddles nonsense about his imaginary acquisition of Greenland, the more obvious it becomes that he’s still tending to his unstable ego after one of the more notable foreign policy fiascos of his second term.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post ‘We got Greenland’: Trump pushes a made-up line about ownership of the arctic island appeared first on MS NOW.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s application to enforce its ban on gender-affirming medical care for federal inmates after a judge blocked the policy.

The denial came in an unexplained order. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito noted they would have granted the administration’s application, but they also did not explain their reasoning.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said the high court’s action “protects incarcerated trans people from the administration’s attempt to steamroll over constitutional rights for now.” But she added, “the fight to uphold the dignity and respect our community deserves is far from over.”

Urging the justices to lift the judge’s order while it appeals, the administration argued that the public interest favors such a result because the policy “provides appropriate, individualized treatment for gender dysphoria, while disallowing only interventions that are medically unnecessary.”

Lawyers for inmates with the American Civil Liberties Union implored the high court not to back the government’s attempt to “overturn a three decades-long status quo.” They said the government turned to the justices at this preliminary stage of the litigation not because it has a pressing legal claim but rather because it is upset about how the district judge applied settled law to the facts in this case.

Over the past couple of years, the Supreme Court has ruled against transgender people in a series of cases involving sports, the military, passports and gender-affirming care for minors.

When he granted a preliminary injunction for inmates in June, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, said he didn’t want to wade into “the culture war being waged against transgender individuals.” He said he was merely making a legal decision that the government had failed to follow proper procedures when it implemented the new policy.

The Washington judge called the government action “arbitrary and capricious” because it “failed to seriously consider its own experience providing gender-affirming care to inmates for years under its prior policy.” Lamberth issued a subsequent order in August maintaining the injunction, finding that despite officials’ claims, it wouldn’t cause safety issues to continue inmates’ medical care while the litigation proceeds.

Over dissent from a Trump appointee, a federal appellate panel declined to lift Lamberth’s injunction.

In the administration’s application to the justices, Solicitor General John Sauer said the Bureau of Prisons had previously provided both what he called “mental-health treatment (such as psychotherapy and psychiatry services)” and “sex-rejecting interventions (such as sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions, and social accommodations).”

Sauer said the government concluded it could no longer justify the second category for two reasons: that such interventions weren’t supported by the latest evidence and that they “raised security and prison-administration concerns that outweighed whatever limited benefits they had.”

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Supreme Court rejects Trump administration on gender-affirming care in prison appeared first on MS NOW.

What will the Senate do with the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025? Likely nothing.

What will the Senate do with the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025? Likely nothing.

At an unrelated event in the Oval Office, Donald Trump wasn’t asked about Sen. Elissa Slotkin, but the president apparently felt the need to lash out at the Michigan Democrat anyway.

Trump says that Sen. Slotkin "should be tried … we'll see what happens"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T19:06:12.877Z

“The senator from Michigan made a statement yesterday that was amazing, where they want to frighten people, young people from ever working in the Trump administration or a Republican administration, that they want to go and they want to frighten people,” he said.

Trump added that “even the most liberal commentators” were amazed by Slotkin, whom the president described as a “stupid person” who “made a statement that was very, very dangerous.”

Then, taking it still further, Trump said the senator “should be tried for what she did,” although he didn’t elaborate on what crime he believes Slotkin had committed.

It’s likely that many of those who heard the president’s remark had no idea what he was talking about, even if the Republican’s message was likely well received in some far-right circles.

What Slotkin actually said wasn’t especially remarkable. Last week (the president got the date wrong), the senator spoke at an academic event at the University of Chicago, where she made a brief, unscripted comment about accountability for those who work within a corrupt bureaucracy and discouraged younger people from joining corrupt bureaucracies.

“I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration?’” she said. “I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.’”

The senator added that meaningful congressional oversight should focus not just on Trump, but on officials who’ve “enabled him” and are “doing his bidding.”

As the discussion continued, Vox’s Astead Herndon noted that Trump has put loyalists in key positions, making it difficult to hold him accountable, at which point Slotkin made the case that shining a light on White House corruption would likely discourage people from joining the administration in its final two years.

The Michigan Democrat made these rather anodyne comments on Tuesday, Oct. 13, and no one seemed to care. No articles about Slotkin’s remarks appeared in any major news organizations the next day, and no one had reason to think presidential threats of prosecution would soon emerge.

But as The Atlantic’s Jon Chait noted, it was roughly five days after the event that “a tidal wave of conservative outrage suddenly crashed over” the senator, with condemnations coming from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and a variety of conservative media voices. Trump himself told reporters earlier this week, “Slotkin said that there should be prosecutions in order to scare people from going into politics.”

Except that never happened. The president attributed made-up comments to the senator, since the benign truth wasn’t good enough to sustain a credible smear.

Stepping back, a few elements to this nonsensical “controversy” stand out. First, the degree to which Trump and his party appear terrified of any scrutiny, accountability or congressional oversight into corruption allegations is tough to miss.

Second, Republicans are so desperate to make the case that Democrats are trying to weaponize government — even as Republicans themselves brazenly weaponize government to a degree without modern precedent — that they’re forced to concoct absurdities like these.

And third, this is a classic example of how the right manages to manufacture outrage out of nothing. “So here’s how the game works,” The New Republic’s Greg Sargent explained. “Right-wing propagandists dishonestly clip a Democrat’s comments to conjure up the impression of a dark plot to persecute supporters of Donald Trump. A bunch of them post on it with an algorithmic boost from Elon Musk. Soon the sheer noise itself vaults the story out of the right-wing ecosphere and into mainstream coverage, where the evenhanded airing of both sides’ ‘positions’ transforms it into a ‘controversy.’ Paydirt!”

As for whether Trump’s Justice Department, which already launched one failed effort to prosecute Slotkin, agrees that the senator “should be tried for what she did,” watch this space.

The post How (and why) Republicans manufactured a faux controversy about Elissa Slotkin appeared first on MS NOW.

Sul proprio profilo Instragram, il neonato ‘Movimento 17 ottobre’ (scorso) posta un video in cui alcuni giovani responsabili dei recenti saccheggi a Milano consegnano un po’ della merce rubata a un ignaro senzatetto. Titolo: ‘Esproprio proletario a Milano’. Un termine del tutto fuori luogo: l’esproprio proletario, infatti, ha tutt’altra storia.

Quei ragazzini, presi a calci nel sedere dai genitori – alcuni non solo metaforicamente – che li attendevano davanti alla Questura dove sono stati portati dopo il fermo di polizia, non possono comprendere cos’è l’esproprio proletario, quello storico, se non altro per motivi anagrafici, a meno che qualche (cattivo) maestro glielo avesse insegnato. La locuzione nasce, infatti, nel 1965, coniata dal movimento uruguaiano dei Tupamaros e viene ripresa, a fine anni ’60, dai militanti della Rote Armee Fraktion (Baader-Meinhof). Era un modo per finanziare la propria attività terroristica.

Lo aveva teorizzato, nel suo Piccolo manuale della guerriglia urbana, Carlos Marighella (1911-1969), guerrigliero brasiliano dall’aria distinta (per un paio d’anni, deputato federale) poi ucciso dalla polizia al soldo della dittatura militare. L’esproprio proletario nasce dunque con logiche squisitamente politiche e, soprattutto, organizzate: elementi che i fatti violenti di questi giorni ignorano completamente e che, se mai, potrebbero portare alla mente per esempio (se non fosse per la giovane età dei saccheggiatori d’oggi) le devastazioni made in Usa del ’71 prodotte dai tagli sociali di allora alla povera gente.

“Nel giro di pochi minuti – scriveva Leo Essen il primo gennaio del ’79 sulla rivista Magazzino – la notte fu illuminata dagli incendi, le strade furono invase da saccheggiatori che spaccavano le vetrine e portavano via di tutto al grido di ‘abbiamo intenzione di prendere ciò che vogliamo: e vogliamo ciò di cui abbiamo bisogno, e anche di più’.” Furono assalti, è vero, come quelli milanesi, “senza collegamento fra loro, ma con un comportamento omogeneo e determinato, squadre ben organizzate di giovani e giovanissimi abbatterono saracinesche e vetrine di grandi magazzini e supermercati” attraverso saccheggi “ad Est e Central Harlem, South Bronx, Bushwick, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, Jamaica Queens, residenze di neri, portoricani, immigrati legali e illegali dell’America centrale, ispanoamericani”.

Diversa, ovviamente, la portata sociale e materiale dei furti: “Nel Bronx, in un salone della Pontiac – proseguiva Essen- i saccheggiatori abbatterono il portone d’acciaio e portarono via 50 auto nuove valutate 250 mila dollari”.

In Italia l’esproprio proletario coincise, negli anni 70, con le lotte di gruppi della sinistra extraparlamentare che teorizzavano, la “riappropriazione” operaia. Dunque negozi e librerie (le immagini della devastazione dei giorni scorsi alla Feltrinelli di Torino non mostrano neppure un ragazzino che si porta via un libro, attratti invece dai giubbotti firmati e le scarpe griffate dei negozi chic di via Torino, a Milano). Probabilmente un libro non lo avranno hanno mai letto… e non lo scrivo con supponenza, ma su basi fattuali di ciò che avviene, salvo rare eccezioni, nelle periferie urbane.

E poi, negli anni 70, nessuno avrebbe mai assalito la Feltrinelli, notoriamente un’editrice di sinistra… ma i ragazzini di oggi neppure questo sanno. Allora i redditi erano bassi e anche oggi, secondo i dati di Eurostat e Banca Centrale Europea, riportati dal Corriere della Sera, “la quota di patrimoni finanziari e immobiliari nelle mani del 5% più ricco delle famiglie italiane è salita, negli ultimi 15 anni, da meno del 40% a più della metà della ricchezza totale”, mentre i poveri aumentano e pure i ceti medi se la passano male.

Anche i movimenti del ’77 puntarono su espropri proletari (e autoriduzioni). Negli espropri proletari di supermercati o negozi la merce sottratta veniva, però (spesso) redistribuita nei quartieri più poveri. Ad esempio, l’esproprio del 6 novembre 2004 a Roma da parte dei centri sociali (e i cosiddetti ‘disobbedienti’) puntò a una “spesa proletaria” al centro commerciale Panorama di Pietralata e alla libreria Feltrinelli di Largo Argentina. Si trattò, però, in effetti, di una “autoriduzione”, “per sensibilizzare, con tanto di stampa convocata, l’opinione pubblica sul mancato controllo dei prezzi arrivati alle stelle”, scriveva il manifesto del 23 gennaio 2007. Tanto che tutti vennero poi assolti. E allora i libri li presero, eccome, perché li leggevano.

Visionando le immagini delle recenti devastazioni in via Torino, a Milano, dove incredibilmente non si è visto un poliziotto per quasi 20 minuti di libere scorrerie (i contingenti erano nella vicina piazza Duomo), si può assistere a uno spacca-spacca generale, a ruota libera. Fra i ragazzini che uscivano dal supermercato Carrefour imbracciando tutto ciò che non potevano permettersi a casa loro, ho notato anche un vecchietto che, barcollando nella fuga, s’era mischiato ai devastatori con due bottiglie di liquore. Mentre un pullman rosso City Sightseeing, quelli a due piani che portano in giro i turisti mostrando le bellezze della città, transitava poco lontano, inquadrato dalle telecamere: chissà cosa avrà detto al microfono la guida…

L'articolo Sui saccheggi a Milano c’è chi parla di esproprio proletario: un termine del tutto fuori luogo proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

As recently as July, few political observers were willing to give South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race a second look. Sen. Lindsey Graham had prevailed in a Republican primary, and the longtime incumbent was on a glide path to another term.

Roughly three months later, in the aftermath of the senator’s unexpected death, the political world’s approach to the race is now spectacularly different. Indeed, Donald Trump is headed back to South Carolina for another campaign rally with appointed Sen. Darline Graham — the president will appear in Pickens County, which he carried by 53 points two years ago — as part of an apparent rescue mission. The Post and Courier in Charleston reported:

President Donald Trump will campaign for Darline Graham tonight at a mid-week, midterm rally many see as a last-minute effort to push her over the top in her unexpectedly close race against Democrat Annie Andrews.

A year ago, the idea of a Republican president campaigning for a Republican incumbent in one of the state’s most conservative regions would have been unthinkable. Trump won South Carolina by nearly 18 points just two years ago. … But a lot has changed in a year.

The problem for Republicans isn’t just that Trump’s visit would have been “unthinkable”; it’s also that it’s apparently necessary. The party is having to invest several million dollars in the South Carolina race, and a new GOP attack ad against Annie Andrews, the Democratic nominee, is so hysterical that it reinforces impressions of Republican panic.

This coincides with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report shifting the race from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican,” the race’s second rating change toward Democrats in as many weeks.

Meanwhile, the same Cook Political Report also moved Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race from “solid Republican” to “likely Republican,” as local prosecutor Scott Colom’s Democratic candidacy starts to make headway against incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith.

The Washington Post reported a few weeks ago that Colom was proving to be such a capable candidate that “top Democratic officials and donors [are] increasingly hopeful that he could pull off the inconceivable.” This week, the party actually opened its wallet. Politico reported:

Senate Majority PAC is putting an initial $1.2 million on television statewide through Election Day to boost Scott Colom, the group announced Tuesday — another plunge into deep-red territory for Democrats as they take advantage of a dismal environment for Republicans. […]

Until now, Democrats said their resources were stretched too thin across a widening map to allow them to play in the Magnolia State. SMP is launching its first ad Wednesday, attacking Hyde-Smith as a “do-nothing” senator, and is planning a digital program as well.

“This really could be the year for a Mississippi miracle,” E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote in his latest New York Times column.

With 13 days remaining in the midterms cycle and the wind apparently at Democrats’ back, the scope of what constitutes a “long shot” is changing in ways that must be making Republican leaders awfully nervous. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post As the midterm map expands, Democrats take a bold look at Senate races in the Deep South appeared first on MS NOW.

When Donald Trump pardoned Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan-Italian banker, earlier this year, an unavoidable controversy soon followed: It wasn’t long before the public learned that Velutini had not only hired a former member of the president’s legal defense team, but also that the pardon came on the heels of generous campaign contributions Velutini’s daughter made to Trump’s super PAC.

But as damaging as those details were, the latest reporting from The New York Times pushes the controversy to a new level.

The surface-level details were already widely known: Velutini, a billionaire banker, was facing felony bribery and other charges in the United States, but his Trump-aligned defense attorney helped negotiate an unusually lenient plea deal in August 2025. Velutini ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance violation.

But that wasn’t quite enough. Velutini still hoped to wipe the slate clean altogether.

To that end, his lawyer — Christopher Kise, the former Florida solicitor general who was part of Trump’s personal legal defense team — tried to use his position to advocate on behalf of his client, and Velutini’s daughter donated $3.5 million to MAGA Inc., the super PAC the Republican president has said he controls.

But while these details are notable in their own right, the Times’ new reporting, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, adds new details related to Alina Habba Mildon, better known at the time as Alina Habba. From the article:

Then the Herrera family hired Alina Habba, who had been one of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers and at the time was an adviser at the Justice Department. They offered her $10 million a year for four years along with a range of bonuses. In total, including bonuses, she was guaranteed more than $50 million over four years, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

Under the agreement, Ms. Habba would become general counsel at Concord Partners, a company that Ms. Herrera set up in late October 2025 in Florida. The company has no public profile and its business remains unclear even to some people associated with the Herrera business empire. Ms. Habba finalized her deal days after the company was registered, while she was still serving as U.S. attorney in New Jersey.

Mildon’s first day at Concord Partners was on Jan. 1, just a few months after the company was created. Weeks later, Trump pardoned Herrera, for reasons the president has never publicly explained or tried to defend.

For her part, Mildon, whose role on Team Trump has long been a point of contention, issued a statement via social media after the Times’ report was published, alleging that the article is part of plot hatched by “left wing media” to “distract” voters during an election season.

Mildon’s lengthy statement added, “Big Scoop: After leaving public service, I’ve gone back to doing what I have done for my entire career: being a lawyer. If the New York Times simply went back and looked at their own reporting, they have already credited another capable attorney for what he successfully did without me and took credit for.  Any insinuation that my employment — all of which has been vetted and disclosed to the D.O.J. — had anything to do with securing a pardon is false and defamatory.”

It’s worth emphasizing, however, that according to the Times’ reporting, Mildon didn’t just begin work in private practice after parting ways with the administration: The article specifically noted that when she began working with Velutini’s daughter, Mildon was a senior adviser to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, and “had an office at the Justice Department and a protective detail from the U.S. Marshals.”

The Times’ report added, “Ms. Herrera and Mr. Herrera did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Neither did their companies. In a statement, the Justice Department said Ms. Habba did not speak to anyone about a pardon.”

Throughout the president’s second term, Trump has faced difficult questions about his scandalous pardons, efforts to secure pardons though lucrative lobbying campaigns, and allegations that pardons might effectively be for sale in this White House.

If the latest reporting is accurate, these questions are not only poised to get louder, they’re likely to be the subject of post-midterms congressional investigations if Democrats are in the majority in either chamber.

The post New reporting escalates controversy surrounding Trump pardon for Venezuelan billionaire appeared first on MS NOW.

C’è sempre un momento in cui un Paese si racconta da solo. Non con i discorsi solenni, non con i convegni sulla partecipazione democratica, ma con le immagini che scorrono sui telefoni: studenti che manifestano, cordoni di polizia, cariche, tensioni, piazze trasformate in campi di contrapposizione. È accaduto ancora una volta in Italia. E ogni volta la domanda è la stessa: davvero il problema sono i ragazzi che protestano o il motivo per cui protestano?

Quando gli studenti scendono in piazza, la tentazione del potere è antica quanto il potere stesso: ridurre tutto a una questione di ordine pubblico. È più semplice contare gli agenti che ascoltare le ragioni. Più facile catalogare una protesta come disturbo che interrogarsi sul malessere che la genera. Eppure, dietro quei cortei, c’è una domanda che attraversa l’intera Europa: quale futuro viene consegnato alle nuove generazioni? I giovani europei non sono una generazione distratta o disinteressata, come una certa retorica ama raccontare. Un’indagine Eurobarometro del 2025 mostra che le loro principali preoccupazioni riguardano il costo della vita, la pace e la stabilità globale. Inoltre, quasi quattro giovani su dieci chiedono maggiori investimenti in alloggi accessibili, formazione e sostegno al potere d’acquisto. Non è il programma di qualche frangia estremista. È la fotografia di una generazione che teme di vivere peggio dei propri genitori.

Il dato è ancora più eloquente se si guarda al mercato del lavoro. Nell’Unione Europea il tasso di disoccupazione giovanile resta attorno al 15%, con milioni di under 25 in cerca di un impiego. Dietro la statistica ci sono volti, competenze, aspettative. C’è soprattutto il rischio che l’incertezza diventi una condizione permanente.

In questo contesto, le proteste studentesche non rappresentano una parentesi di agitazione, ma il sintomo di una questione più profonda. Lo studente che manifesta per una scuola più inclusiva, per investimenti nell’istruzione, per la pace o per il clima non sta soltanto avanzando una rivendicazione. Sta chiedendo di essere considerato cittadino del presente e non semplice promessa del domani.

L’Europa, del resto, conosce bene questo fenomeno. Dalla Francia alla Germania, dalla Spagna ai Paesi Bassi, le piazze giovanili sono diventate il luogo in cui si condensano le ansie collettive di una generazione cresciuta tra crisi finanziarie, pandemia, guerre alle porte del continente e aumento del costo della vita. Non è ribellismo romantico. È la ricerca di una prospettiva credibile.

Per questo ogni manganello che colpisce uno studente produce un effetto che va oltre la cronaca. Non perché le forze dell’ordine siano il nemico, ma perché uno Stato democratico dovrebbe sempre considerare la protesta giovanile come una domanda politica prima che un problema di sicurezza. La democrazia non si misura quando tutti sono d’accordo; si misura nella capacità di ascoltare il dissenso senza trasformarlo in un’avversità da contenere. Viene in mente una frase di Don Lorenzo Milani, che conserva una straordinaria attualità: “Ho imparato che il problema degli altri è uguale al mio. Sortirne tutti insieme è la politica. Sortirne da soli è l’avarizia.” Una società che non ascolta i propri giovani sceglie la seconda strada.

Gli studenti italiani non chiedono privilegi. Chiedono di poter immaginare il proprio futuro senza sentirlo continuamente rinviato. Chiedono una scuola che non sia un parcheggio sociale, un’università accessibile, un lavoro dignitoso, un pianeta abitabile, una pace possibile. Chiedono, in fondo, ciò che ogni generazione ha il diritto di chiedere: una ragione per credere che il domani sarà migliore dell’oggi.

La vera domanda, allora, non è perché gli studenti protestino. La domanda è perché, di fronte a un grido che attraversa l’Europa, ci sia ancora chi scambia una richiesta di futuro per un problema di ordine pubblico. Perché quando i ragazzi scendono in piazza, non stanno occupando la strada. Stanno occupando il vuoto lasciato dalla politica. E quel vuoto, prima o poi, qualcuno dovrà avere il coraggio di colmarlo.

L'articolo Manganelli sul futuro: davvero il problema sono i ragazzi che protestano? proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Viaggio tra Torino e Milano da più di cinque anni: tre volte alla settimana, con orari abbastanza fissi. Mi ritengo fortunata perché ho a disposizione dei giorni di smartworking mensili e anche perché sono una pendolare “comoda”: vivo a un chilometro dalla stazione di partenza, il mio ufficio si trova non lontano dalla stazione di arrivo.

Nonostante la stanchezza cronica di chi come me passa buona parte del proprio tempo di non lavoro sui mezzi, ho sempre considerato vantaggioso potermi fare una famiglia nella città che ho scelto e continuare a lavorare in un’altra, tra l’altro quella più ricca (e costosa) d’Italia. Viaggiare poi non mi costringe a cercare un alloggio a Milano, che come tutti sanno ha prezzi altamente proibitivi.

Da questo novembre però dovrò rivedere i miei piani: Trenitalia ha deciso di eliminare lo strumento introdotto durante i primi anni di Covid, il carnet Smart, che consente alle persone come me – che possono lavorare da remoto alcuni giorni a settimana – di spostarsi tra due città senza dover acquistare il costosissimo abbonamento (nel mio caso 374 euro al mese) dell’alta velocità. Usando il carnet Smart riuscivo a coprire i miei circa 12-14 giorni in presenza in redazione (per un totale di 22-24 viaggi a/r) mensili con una spesa che si aggirava – è una stima al ribasso – sulle 250 euro. Stiamo parlando di somme importanti ma per un trasporto veloce, che mi evita un affitto a Milano, il conto è senz’altro in attivo.

La doccia fredda è arrivata lunedì: le condizioni “sono cambiate” e dunque via i carnet, l’unica soluzione è l’abbonamento, ridotto di qualche euro ma con la gabola della prenotazione obbligatoria a 2 euro per ciascuna corsa. Questo significa che io, come altri milioni di pendolari in tutta Italia sulle tratte brevi di alta velocità, vedremo aumentare i nostri costi mensili del 126% (questo il calcolo dell’onorevole Marco Grimaldi – Avs che per primo ha denunciato il salasso), l’equivalente di uno stipendio a fine anno.

Ok, Trenitalia è un’azienda pubblica ma pur sempre un’azienda. Non sono ingenua e mi aspetto che negli anni possa rimodulare le sue offerte commerciali e – soprattutto per l’alta velocità – voglia monetizzare il più possibile. Qui però non si tratta di rincari, ma di un cambio di paradigma. Dice l’azienda: ora che non c’è più la pandemia, quei carnet non servono più. “Alla luce dei cambiamenti nelle abitudini di viaggio e nell’organizzazione del lavoro – spiega nella nota – Trenitalia ha sviluppato una nuova formula di abbonamento, pensata per rispondere alle esigenze sia dei pendolari tradizionali sia degli smart worker”. Quale ottusità!

Quindi – per capire – ora che c’è un sistema che funziona e hai creato una comunità di lavoratori vincolata a quello strumento, al posto di potenziarlo e magari aggiungere nuove corse, cosa fai? Lo rimuovi. Chiaro, no? Ma quale modello sociale vogliamo se un’azienda pubblica è la prima a fare cassa sui lavoratori?

Siamo peraltro in un periodo nero per gli spostamenti visti i costi energetici lievitati a dismisura: andare in auto per me non è un’alternativa sostenibile, non lo sarebbe nemmeno dal punto di vista ecologico; e penso di parlare per migliaia di persone. Sottotraccia poi c’è sempre quel modo di dipingere lo smartworking come emergenziale e non come parte strutturale di un mondo del lavoro evoluto.

In questi giorni, a bordo dei treni, ho sentito tante persone parlare animatamente di questa “novità”: la maggior parte dei commenti era tra il furioso e lo sconsolato. Molti – come me – dovranno farsi i conti in tasca e valutare l’effettiva convenienza di pendolare, già di per sé un’attività usurante. Al momento alcuni parlamentari hanno annunciato interrogazioni al ministro dei Trasporti, le istituzioni locali (nel mio caso l’assessore regionale piemontese) hanno fatto sapere che chiederanno spiegazioni: mi sembra il minimo.

Ai pendolari non resta che arrabbiarsi e denunciare questa stangata a freddo. Sono nati dei comitati, su Change.org qualcuno ha lanciato una petizione, sui social c’è una valanga di commenti negativi. Continuiamo ad attivarci.

L'articolo Via i carnet, salasso per i pendolari. Grazie Trenitalia! È questo il servizio pubblico che vogliamo proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.